‘Can’t shirk her obligation’: Karnataka High Court says daughter must care for aged mother, upholds property return order

Due to marital discord with her husband, Hema lived with Pavithra for about 3.5 years in her own house. During this period, her children advised her to transfer her property through a gift deed, on the understanding that the rental income would be used for her benefit.

A gift deed and a conflict

Hema agreed to it and executed a gift deed in their favour, following which her daughter and her son, R Venugopal, began collecting rent from different portions of the property. However, Hema alleged that her children subjected her to mental harassment and failed to provide for her basic needs.

She also said that she had to rent out a property to live in while the children continued to receive the rental income from her property.

She filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the gift deeds. After examining the material on record, the Tribunal allowed the plea, annulled the gift deed, and directed the return of the property to Hema.

The order was later upheld by the deputy commissioner on appeal filed by the daughter, following which she approached the Karnataka High Court.

Section 23(1) of the Act provides that where a senior citizen transfers property on the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and meet their physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer may be deemed to have been made through fraud, coercion, or undue influence and can be declared void.

Pavithra argued that the gift deed executed by her mother contained no express condition requiring her to maintain Hema. She contended that the property was gifted out of love and affection, and therefore, the requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act were not met.

Hema opposed the petition, arguing that an express condition in the gift deed requiring maintenance of a senior citizen is not mandatory and can be inferred from the pleadings, surrounding circumstances, and the parties’ conduct. She further contended that the Act’s beneficial purpose cannot be defeated by a hyper-technical interpretation.

‘Breach of the implicit condition of care’

The bench noted that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect senior citizens from destitution and neglect. “To insist upon a formal recital in every case would render the statutory protection illusory and defeat the legislative intent,” the court said.

The bench said Hema, a senior citizen and a retired government school teacher, had transferred her self-acquired properties in favour of her son and daughter, thereby divesting herself of her proprietary rights, clearly reposing trust and legitimate expectation of care, protection and financial security in the hands of her children.

The bench added that she is now compelled to reside in a rented accommodation, bereft of both shelter in her own property and the benefit of income arising therefrom.

“These circumstances, when cumulatively assessed, leave no manner of doubt that the transfer was intrinsically premised upon an implied assurance of care and maintenance, which forms the very substratum of Section 23.”

“The statute, being a beneficial and remedial legislation, cannot be rendered otiose by insisting upon a formal or express recital of such obligation in the deed of transfer. The absence of an explicit covenant is inconsequential when the conduct of the transferees and the resultant destitution of the transferor vividly establish a breach of the foundational expectation underlying the transaction.”

“Breach of the implicit condition of care and maintenance stands established from the surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct, thereby justifying annulment of the gift deeds and restoration of possession to the second respondent.”

Noting that Pavithra owns an independent house and yet permitted her aged mother to live in a rented accommodation, the bench said, “It speaks volumes and clearly establishes failure to discharge the moral and statutory obligation.”

“The petitioner, having been the beneficiary of the gift, cannot shirk her obligation, viz, legal, moral, and social, to ensure the well-being of her mother.”

Emphasising that the beneficent provisions of the Act must be given a purposive interpretation to advance its object, the court dismissed the petition and said, “No grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities.”