IMPORTANT POINT
The Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Act does not extend to adjudicating the validity of a gift deed; such matters must be addressed in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Joshi, J.

1. The issue arises in this petition is as to whether it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “the Act”) to decide the issue about a gift or any document being obtained from senior citizen by fraud and whether the proceeding under Section 23 of the Act, can be used to seek declaration of any document/transfer as cancelled bypassing process of adjudication of real dispute regarding validity of transaction.

2. The petitioners herein are challenging the order dated 12th December 2022 passed by the Tribunal under the Act whereby the gift deed in respect of the subject property executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners was cancelled and this order was upheld by the appellate authority by passing the order dated 9th October 2023.

3. The facts, which led to filing of this petition, can be narrated in brief as under :

(i) Petitioner No.1 is the son-in-law of respondent No.1 and petitioner No.2 is her daughter. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 was residing with them at the relevant time and had voluntarily and out of love and affection executed a registered gift deed bearing 4976 of 2016 dated 3rd August 2016 in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of property bearing plot No.103, R.S.No.869/1, 2, 876 and 877 situated at Shree Prathamik Shikshakanchi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Kolhapur.

(ii) As per case of petitioners, husband of respondent No.1 instituted suit being R.C.S. No.415 of 2017 against petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, respondent No.1 filed a written statement denying allegations therein and categorically admitting the fact of execution of gift deed on her own free will and out of love and affection. It is further case of the petitioners that when respondent No.2, who is the sister of the petitioner No.2, learnt about execution of gift deed, she instigated respondent No.1 to file complaint under the provisions of the Act. It is on such instigation, a complaint came to be filed being case No. MAG/SR/MATAPITA/17/2022 before the Tribunal under the Act against petitioners as well as respondent No.2. In the said complaint, it is contended by respondent No.1 that she is getting monthly pension of Rs.30,000/-. It is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioners have obtained gift deed in respect of the subject property by playing fraud upon her. The Tribunal passed order dated 12th December 2022 whereby the gift deed in question was cancelled for the reason that the petitioners are not maintaining respondent No.1. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate authority. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, makes a statement that, on instructions, that the petitioners do not wish to challenge the direction issued by the Tribunal of granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1. The challenge to the order is restricted to cancellation of gift deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner No.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the issue as to whether the impugned gift deed has been executed by respondent No.1 by fraud or misrepresentation caused to her by the petitioners. According to him, in absence of any covenant in the gift deed about transferee agreeing to maintain senior citizen, such document is not open for cancellation. To support this submission, he placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Chhikara Versus Ramti Devi and Anr. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1684. It is submitted that in the summary procedure to be adopted in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the issue of fraud and validity of registered document cannot be gone into and this issue can only be decided by the competent civil court. On merits,