The Tribunal's authority under Section 23(1) is limited to breaches of care conditions in gift deeds, not general fraud claims.

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Anjaria, C.J.)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Vikas for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Smt. Usha Prakash for respondent No.2.

2. Preferred by the original petitioners under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, this writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.12226 of 2020, dismissing the petition.

2.1 What was prayed in the petition was to set aside the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the President, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, North Sub-Division, Bengaluru. It was an order passed under 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal declared that the registered Gift Deed dated 28.01.2014 was liable to be treated as cancelled since transfer of the properties thereunder was void.

3. The gift deed was in respect of the properties bearing Survey Nos.99/3, 99/4 and 130/10 situated at Kananuru Village, Kuduru Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. The Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, was directed to take steps to cancel the said gift deed and effect mutation entries in the name of one K.V. Nanjappa-the complainant, who happened to be the father of the petitioner-appellant Mr. Jayashankar.

3.1 It was stated in the complaint filed by the said K.V. Nanjappa that he was aged about hundred years and had 4 daughters and 3 sons who all were married and leading their life happily. It was stated that the ancestral and joint properties of the family were partitioned and the complainant had retained one house, certain sites and 5 acres of land. It was stated that the younger son of the complainant-Jayashankar alias Rajanna took the complainant to the Taluka Office by misrepresentation that his presence was needed in respect of pension case and that at same time he got registered a document from the complainant in his favour.

3.1.1 It was further stated in the complaint that the said Jayashankar, the petitioner-appellant had also sold four sites situated at Kuduru Village which belonged to the complainant, pocketed the entire sale consideration and did not pay any amount to the complainant. It was the say of the complainant that his son, the said Jayashankar, also received Rs. 20,000/- from the pension amount kept in the bank.

3.1.2 The complainant's case was also that he had recently learnt that his younger son Jayashankar had got registered one gift deed from the complainant in respect of the entire land which was owned by the complainant. The complainant stated that he did not execute any such gift deed in favour of his son Jayashankar and despite that, Jayashankar had been trying to alienate the land.

3.2 It was upon such complaint made to the competent authority under the Act that upon adjudication, the order under 23(1) of the Act came to be passed by the Tribunal providing cancellation of the said gift deed.

3.3 Learned Single Judge noticed the contents and recitals in the Gift Deed in question dated 28.01.2014. The conditions and stipulations thereof was reproduced. It was held and observed by learned Single Judge that the gift deed was unequivocal and provided that the property was gifted to the petitioner-son on the condition that he was to take care of the donor-the transferor and that such care of the father-the transferor will be taken throughout the lifetime of the father. The petitioner was found to be not taking care of the father, the condition of the gift deed was thus breached.

3.3.1. It was further recorded by learned Single Judge that the complaint was given by the father to the Assistant Commissioner, who the competent authority under the Act, after nine months when the father was driven out of the house by the petitioner-appellant. It was observed that the petitioner-son admitted that the father had not been residing in his