Conditions for voiding a gift deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act must be expressly stated; mere implications do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. The appellant [hereafter also referred to as 'the father'] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14704/2021 (GM-RES). The said petition was filed by respondent No.1 [hereafter ‘the Purchaser’] assailing an order dated 07.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 [the Tribunal] cancelling the Gift Deed dated 20.06.2019 [hereafter ‘the gift deed’] executed by the father in favour of respondent No.4 [hereafter also referred to as 'the son'] and the subsequent sale deed dated 19.12.2019 executed in favour of the Purchaser.

2. The learned Single Judge set aside the Tribunal's order cancelling the gift deed. However, directed the son to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the father.

3. The father contends that under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [the Act], the gift deed executed in favour of his son is void and consequently, the sale of the subject property by the son in favour of the Purchaser is also liable to be set aside.

Prefatory facts

4. The appellant (father) was the absolute owner of a property measuring 78.99 sq. mts. bearing Municipal Khaneshumari No.1345/1177/1178, presently having No.1466, Property I.D No.22-1-5-100, located at M.G. Road, Block No.1, Channapatna Town, Ramanagara District [hereafter, 'the subject property']. The appellant had gifted the said property to his wife Smt.Kalavathi in terms of a registered gift deed dated 15.03.2000.

5. During her lifetime, Smt.Kalavathi had executed a mortgage deed dated 07.11.2012 in favour of State Bank of India as security for the loan advanced by the said Bank.

6. Smt.Kalavathi expired on 29.10.2015. After the demise of Smt.Kalavathi, the father executed the Gift Deed dated 20.06.2019 in favour of the son (respondent No.4). Thereafter, respondent No.5 (who is the brother of respondent No.4 and the appellant's another son) executed a release deed relinquishing all his rights, title and interests in the subject property in favour of the son. Thereafter, the son paid an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to State Bank of India for discharging the loan availed by his mother and the State Bank of India executed the Discharge Deed dated 12.11.2019 in his favour. Thus, the son became the owner of the subject property free from all encumbrances.

7. Thereafter, the son sold the property in favour of the Purchaser in terms of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2019. The son claims that he had received a sum of Rs.40,87,000/- as sale consideration and out of the aforesaid sum, he had deposited Rs.15,00,000/- with LIC which yields an annuity of Rs 10,000 per month in favour of the father.

8. Respondent No.5 had also executed a release deed for a consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-, out of the said amount, sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by cheques and the balance of Rs.17,00,000/- was on account of taking over the loans availed by respondent No.5, which the son states have since been discharged.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the son had made the aforesaid payments: Rs. 19,00,000/- to State Bank of India; Rs.15,00,000/- deposited with LIC; and Rs.19,50,000/- paid as consideration for relinquishment of rights and interests in the subject property to respondent No.5. Thus, according to the son, he has paid total amount of Rs.53,50,000/- including Rs.15,00,000/- deposited with LIC.

10. The appellant a