Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, V.G. ARUN, T.R. RAVI, JJ.
Subhashini C/o. Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Kozhikode – Respondent
W.A. No. 1460 of 2015
Decided On : 22-09-2020
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007-Section 23-Condition -Provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous transfer- Tribunal will have to look into before invoking Section 23(1) and proceeding on a summary enquiry
Statement of facts:
Reference made by a Division Bench seeking resolution of the conflict; specifically on the extent to which Section 23 of the Act could proceed in annulling such rights obtained in immovable property by transfer inter-vivos.
Finding of the court:
The document, which is the subject matter of dispute, is a settlement deed wherein there is a reservation of right of residence in the residential building as also to take usufructs from the standing coconut trees in the property. There is no condition as required under Section 23(1) expressly stated in the document. The life interest reserved in the document cannot also lead to such a condition being implied or inferred. There can be no consideration of the circumstances under which the document was executed, as has been attempted by the appellate authority
Result: Reference is answered -Appeal dismissed
Key Points: - The judgment discusses whether Section 23(1) requires an express condition in the transfer document for voiding a transfer under the Act. (!) (!) (!) - It analyzes the necessity of express recital of basic amenities and basic physical needs in the document to invoke Section 23(1). (!) (!) - It clarifies the Tribunal’s limited, summary jurisdiction under Section 23(1) and distinguishes it from civil court adjudication, including its inability to order possession or thorough fact-finding. (!) (!) (!) - It rejects broad implied-inference approaches and favors an express condition in the document to trigger Section 23(1). (!) (!) - It references prior decisions (e.g., Malukutty Ponnarassery, Shabeen Martin, Sundhari, Radhamani) to support the requirement of express recital. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It notes that Section 23(1) is prospective and applies to agreements executed after the Act's commencement. (!)
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
“Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they judge them; sometimes they forgive them.”
[Oscar Wilde]
1. Only sometimes; but that is no reason to stop loving them, refuse to care for them and alienate them, is the principle on which the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for brevity ‘the Act’) has been interpreted in majority of the decisions of this Court and some other High Courts. Certain Benches trode a different path to find that the statute though inspired by traditional values, all the same has to be interpreted strictly and there could be no question of unrequited love raised; to bring in drastic consequences to the rights on property gifted or settled by reason of the love and affection of the donor or settler for the beneficiary. The matter is placed before us through a reference made by a Division Bench seeking resolution of the conflict; specifically on the extent to which Section 23 of the Act could proceed in annulling such rights obtained in immovable property by transfer inter-vivos. We would refer to the conflicting decisions as we record the arguments.
2. Smt. Parvathi Menon, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/senior citizen, argued for the position that, in the absence of the condition under Section 23(1) being expressed in the document of transfer; the Tribunal constituted under the Act has a duty to inquire into the circumstances under which a transfer has been effectuated by a senior citizen, in this case the mother herself. There could be no insistence of a condition being available in the deed, as to the transfer having been effected on condition of the transferee providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, a senior citizen. The mere expectation of such a reciprocal understanding would suffice, which, even if not expressed, could be implied or inferred, from the recitals in the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution. If on an inquiry the condition can be inferred or implied and if the transferor-senior citizen asserts breach, then the deeming provision squarely applies and the transfer could be declared void by the Tribunal at the option of the senior citizen.
3. A Division Bench in W.A. No. 2012 of 2012 dated 28.11.2012, Malukutty Ponnarassery vs. P. Rajan Ponnarassery, found that the absence of an express recital of an undertaking by the transferee, to make provision of basic necessities and amenities to the transferor, would divest the Tribunal of the authority to declare void a transfer effected by a senior citizen. The said decision is on a totally wrong premise without understanding the object of the enactment brought in specifically to curb a rampant degeneration of values in today’s society leading to children refusing to look after their parents after having obtained valuable properties by way of gift or otherwise from their parents, which often is the only source of livelihood and residence for the old and infirm transferor, contends Smt. Parvathi.
4. It is argued that the decision in Shabeen Martin vs. Muriel, 2016 (5) KHC 603, held otherwise and so did another Division Bench in Sundhari vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2018 KHC 4655 : 2013 (3) KLT 1082. The decisions of a learned Single Judge reported in Radhamani vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (1) KHC 9 and Manju G.S. vs. K.N. Gopi, 2020 (1) KHC 10 has looked at the religious and philosophical texts to highlight the traditional value systems; validating an interpretation which would further the ideal cause and bring to fruition the objects of the enactment. It is argued that Section 3 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act and a senior citizen is relieved of the rigmarole of a regular judicial proceeding with the intention of providing expeditious relief. The procedure of the Tribunal as declared by Section 8 of the Act is summary. The Tribunal is also conferred with the powers of the Civil Court. The ju
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
