80-year-old mother neglected, court upholds cancellation of property she gifted to son

“A bare perusal of the record shows that the woman, an 80-year-old senior citizen and mother of the petitioner, executed a gift deed in the year 2011 in favour of the petitioner. The recitals of the deed indicate that the transfer was made voluntarily, without consideration, and out of love and affection for her only son, with the intention of securing his welfare and livelihood,” the court said on June 25.

The petitioner-son was challenging the tribunal’s decision cancelling the gift deed of the property that his 80-year-old mother had transferred in his name in the expectation that he would care for her in the future.

In February 2019, the mother had filed a petition before the tribunal under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking relief after she had suffered from Covid-19 and a brain stroke. She alleged that the petitioner had taken her property but failed to look after her needs, and requested the authorities to take appropriate action.

Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda noted that senior citizens generally derive comfort and dignity from being cared for by their own family members.

Gift deed executed in 2011

Upon enquiry, the tribunal noted that the woman is presently residing with her younger daughter. She has a son and two daughters. Her elder daughter and son-in-law had passed away several years ago. It considered that she executed a gift deed in 2011 transferring her ancestral land in favour of the petitioner, her son.

According to her, she did so believing the petitioner’s assurance that he would take care of her in the future. However, after obtaining the property, he neglected her. She therefore requested cancellation of the gift deed and restoration of the property to her. Based on its enquiry, the tribunal learned that the woman’s daughter took care of her medical expenses and other needs, and had expressed willingness to continue supporting her in the future.

The report further recorded that the petitioner had stated his willingness to provide shelter, medical care, and other amenities if his mother chose to reside at Jonnalagadda, and a housemaid would also be appointed to look after her.

After hearing both parties and considering the tahsildar’s report, the tribunal concluded that the petitioner had obtained the property by taking advantage of his mother’s trust and that the gift deed was liable to be cancelled. The son challenged this order in the high court.

Appearing for the woman, advocate V V Lakshmi Narayana submitted that although the application was filed in 2019 and remained pending until 2023, the petitioner had not taken any meaningful steps to ensure her welfare during that period.

Willing to pay maintenance: Son

Appearing for the son, advocate D Krishna Murthy submitted that the petitioner’s wife had passed away after a prolonged illness, due to which he was unable to personally attend to the needs of his mother.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had constructed a new house to provide accommodation for his mother and was willing to pay maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month, along with arranging a housemaid, if required, for the remainder of her life. The petitioner denied the allegations that he had neglected or driven his mother out of the house and asserted that he had always been concerned about her welfare.

Failed to care for mother: Order

• The gift deed indicates that the property transfer was made voluntarily, without any payment, and out of affection for her son, but the deed does not contain any specific condition requiring the petitioner to maintain or care for his mother.
• The tribunal rightly concluded that the petitioner has failed to provide the amenities for the mother’s well-being, which amounts to a violation of Section 23 (transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances) of the Act.
• Since the execution of the gift deed in 2011, the petitioner has not been taking care of his mother. Even the affidavits and statements relied upon by him indicate only a willingness to provide accommodation and maid services, and do not reflect any commitment towards personal care for his mother.
• The order noted that at an advanced age, senior citizens generally derive comfort, emotional support, and dignity from being cared for by their own family members.
• The petitioner’s contention that his mother could be adequately looked after in a separate house with the assistance of a maid cannot be considered a satisfactory fulfilment of his obligation towards her welfare.

Tribunal order upheld

The high court upheld the tribunal’s order, holding that it was legal, valid, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The tribunal, exercising powers under Section 23(1) of the Act, declared the gift deed void and directed the sub-registrar to take steps for cancellation of the document in accordance with law.