Senior Citizen's Failure To Make Gift Deed Conditional On Maintenance Doesn't Absolve Duty Of Transferee: Telangana High Court Reiterates

The Telangana High Court, in regard to Section 23(1) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has reiterated that mere non-mentioning of a condition to maintain in a gift deed does not absolve the receiver from the duty of maintenance.

Justice Pulla Karthik, while relying on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, and rendered by the Kerala High Court in Radhamani and Oths vs. State of Kerala and, Subhashini v. District Collector has held:

“...his Court is of the view that mere non-mentioning of a condition in the gift deed to maintain the executor does not absolve the petitioner from performing his duty to maintain the respondent No.4 to keep the gift deed in force. Therefore, the plea urged by the petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained and is hereby rejected.”

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by a son, against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector permitting his father to revoke the land gifted in favour of him.

The son/petitioner approached the Court, contending that his father had gifted him the property under question and he even paid his uncle (father's brother) a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs for relinquishment of his share in the property. An MoU was also executed showing the same. He contended that there were no pre-conditions in the gift deed, stipulating maintenance, and thus, that ground could not be taken by his father.

He further contended that he had gotten a favourable order in a case, filed by his father/R4, seeking cancellation of gift deed, by the Primary Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and even by the appellate authority under the Act. However, the second appellate authority passed an order against him and remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for consideration.

He contended that the second appellate authority passed the order without considering a stay issued by the High Court, and also alleged that the order was antedated. In regard to the first appellate authority, the petitioner contended that, when the matter was remanded, he was not given an opportunity of hearing and was passed under the influence.

The father on the other hand contended that the subject property was a joint family property, and the question of gifting it away to one son would not arise. It was also contended that the MoU referred to by the petitioner was unregistered. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Sub-Registrar, misrepresenting an interim order passed by the High Court in this case, seeking suspension of the revocation of the gift deed.

After considering the facts, the Bench noted that the petitioner was filing multiple petitions, not allowing the proceedings to come to a logical end. The bench also noted, that the petitioner had removed the first page of the order to misrepresent the parties arrayed in the writ, in an attempt to seek suspension of the revocation of the gift deed.

“Thus, the writ petitioner himself has clearly admitted that he made representation to the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, by removing the first page of the order of this Court, but, however, contends that he has not tampered the order of this Court. As stated supra, first page of the order also forms part and parcel of the Order and the act committed by the petitioner certainly amounts to playing fraud and misleading the authorities, which has to be criticized and reprimanded,” it held.

With that observation, the writ was dismissed.

C. Srinivas vs. State of TS

Counsel for petitioner: C. Hari Preeth

Counsel for respondents: Addl Advocate General, Mohammed Imran Khan and N. Vashishta Venkateshwarlu.

Click Here To Read/Download Order