SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, J.
Jayanta Ghosh & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Ajit Ghosh – Opposite Party
C.O. No. 4243 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rwitendra Banerjee, Sandip Kundu, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :Samarjit Basu, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deed of gift was found to be unconditional and did not fall under the conditions specified in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Headnote:

Gift Deed - Property Dispute - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 10(1), 10(4), 23, 2(b), 2(d), 2(f) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly focusing on Section 23 regarding the void transfer of property in certain circumstances. The court emphasized that the deed of gift was unconditional and did not fall under the conditions specified in Section 23, thus setting aside the order cancelling the deeds of gift.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners received a two-storied building as a gift from the opposite party. The opposite party filed for maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and subsequently filed applications seeking cancellation of the gift deeds. The court also mentioned the civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of title and injunction against the opposite party's daughters and sons-in-law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deed of gift was unconditional and did not fall under the conditions specified in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court also noted that the opposite party was granted liberty to file an application under Section 10(1) for alteration of the maintenance allowance, but the subsequent prayer for cancellation of the deeds of gifts was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the gift deeds, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to cancel the deeds of gift, and the application of Sections 10(1) and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deed of gift was unconditional and did not fall under the conditions specified in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court also emphasized that the subsequent prayer for cancellation of the deeds of gifts was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order cancelling the deeds of gift and granted the revisional application. There was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners were the opposite parties in Maintenance Case No.26 of 2019 which was filed by the opposite party herein, before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Hooghly, under Sections 10 (I), (4), 23, 2(b), 2(d), 2(f), of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated November 13, 2019 passed by the learned Tribunal on the following grounds :-

a) The learned Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to cancel the two registered deeds executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner No.1 dated July 18, 2018 and dated November 14, 2018 executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

(b) The order of cancellation of the two registered deeds of gifts and the direction to vacate the premises within six months were perverse in view of the fact that a Civil Court had already granted status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the self same property.

(c) The deed of gift executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner No.1 was unconditional and as such the learned Tribunal wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 23 of the said Act.

(d) The learned Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction of the petitioners from the disputed property.

2. The facts of the case in an nutshell is that by a registered deed of gift dated July 18, 2018, Ajit Ghosh, the opposite party herein, transferred a two storied building together with the appurtenant land measuring 0.026 Acre situated at L.R. plot no.639, L.R. khatian no. 53, Mouja and Police Station - Chinsurah (J.L. no.20), District- Hooghly, Municipal holding no.71/24 under Ward no.22, Chinsurah Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said property), to his son Jayanta Ghosh, the Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, by a registered deed of gift dated November 14, 2018, the Petitioner No.1 transferred the suit property to his wife and son, the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 herein. The petitioners reside on the first floor and the parents reside in the ground floor. Both have separate entrances and toilet facility for their exclusive use in their respective floors. The petitioners have alleged that the married daughters of the opposite party and their husbands with ulterior motive tried to grab the said property, conspired with few developers and created a cloud over the petitioners' title over the suit property. Under such circumstances, being left with no other alternative the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were constrained to institute a civil suit being Title Suit No.371 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the suit), seeking a decree for declaration of title and injunction against the daughters and sons-in-law of the opposite party. In the said suit, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 filed an application for injunction, thereby seeking to restrain the defendants therein from disturbing the peaceful possession of plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. By an Order no.2 dated September 17, 2019, the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Hooghly directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit property. The opposite party filed an application seeking maintenance under the said Act which was registered as Maintenance Case No.04 of 2019. By an order dated August 7, 2019, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner No.1 to pay maintenance of a sum of rupees 10,000/- per month. The opposite party further filed Maintenance Case No.17 of 2019. The learned Tribunal by an order dated August 30, 2019, directed the inspector- in-charge, Chinsurah to restore the possession to the opposite party and his wife in the said property. The opposite party again filed an application before the learned Tribunal seeking cancellation of the said deed of gift. The said application was registered as Maintenance Case No.26 of 2019.

3. Ultimately by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top