The provisions of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted if the transfer does not contain a stipulation for the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

JUDGMENT :

B.Veerappa, J.

The present Intra Court Appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 26.2.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.52010/2016 by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by one Sri M.B. Nagaraju/respondent No.3 herein and quashing the order, dated 20.8.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner with an observation that the appellant herein shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.

2. It is the case of the 3rd respondent, who is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that he had purchased a property bearing Municipal Assessment No.3327/3081 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet situated at K.R.S. Agrahara, Ward No.22, Kunigal Town under a registered Sale Deed, dated 1.12.2006, in the name of the appellant/Nanjappa with a condition that the same has to be re-conveyed in his name (3rd respondent) and the entire sale consideration was paid by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the appellant/Nanjappa herein executed a registered Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, in favour of the 3rd respondent/M.B. Nagaraju in respect of the said property clearly mentioning in the Gift Deed that the entire sale consideration is paid by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter on 25.2.2016, the appellant/Nanjappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for a declaration that the Gift Deed is null and void and in turn, the Assistant Commissioner by the order, dated 20.8.2016, allowed the application filed by the present appellant/Nanjappa, who was the 3rd respondent before the learned Single Judge and cancelled the registered Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, to reregister the right in respect of the said property in favour of present appellant/Nanjappa, which was challenged by the 3rd respondent/M.B. Nagaraju by filing a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.52010/2016 before this Court for the relief sought for.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both parties and considering the material on record by the impugned order, dated 26th February, 2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order, dated 20th August, 2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, does not contain any such stipulation that the transferee shall maintain the Senior Citizen. However, it was observed that the present appellant/Nanjappa would be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. Hence, the present Intra Court Appeal is filed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained and hence, is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the impugned order is neither correct nor maintainable on the ground that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Senior Citizens Act’) are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He would further contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the ‘Act’ in question was framed with a view to provide maintenance and welfare of the parents and the senior citizen which is directly recognized and guaranteed under the Constitution of India and all matters incidental thereto. Further to ensure the life, the property of the senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. Thus the act recognises the vulnerable position of the senior citizen in the present society and intends to provide mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are secured.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that