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

2020 Supreme(Ker) 1064

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 & Ors. – Respondents
W.A. No. 1460 of 2015
Decided On : 22-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. P. Sanjay, Smt. A. Parvathi Menon.
For the Respondents: Sri. P. Narayanan, Senior Govt. Pleader, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, Sri. Harish R. Menon, Sri. K.T. Shyamkumar.

Point of Law : A gift as contemplated under the TP Act could have a condition precedent or a condition subsequent.

Headnote:

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 –Section 27 and Section 32-Right to property gifted out of love to Son – Failure to maintain parents – Transfer of immovable property – absence of an express recital of an undertaking by the transferee, to make provision of basic necessities and amenities to the transferor – Settlement in favour of son – Obligations of Son – Power to the State Government to prescribe by rules.

Finding of the Court :

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 : Appeal dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that Section 23(1) requires an express condition in the transfer document for the Tribunal to declare void, and debates whether the condition can be implied from recital or surrounding circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - It analyzes the preferred interpretation of "gift or otherwise" in Section 23(1) as being restricted to transfers that are gifts or akin to gifts, and emphasizes the need for express recital of the condition. (!) (!) - The decision holds that Section 23(1) is a standalone, speedy remedy with a deeming effect for transfers lacking the required express condition, and that the Tribunal has limited, non-judicial, executive-like powers, distinct from a Civil Court. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It approves certain precedents (Radhamani) while distinguishing others (Shabeen Martin, Sundhari) as wrongly decided, in the context of the requirement for express condition. (!) - The judgment discusses the potential rights of bona fide purchasers and the limitations of Section 23(1) in relation to third-party interests and enforcement, including Section 126 TP Act protections. (!) (!)

What is the scope of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in relation to transfers of property by gift or otherwise?

What are the requirements for an express condition to be valid under Section 23(1) and can such a condition be implied from the document or surrounding circumstances?

What is the appropriate tribunal's jurisdiction and the nature of its proceedings under Section 23(1) compared to civil courts, and can Section 23(1) declare a transfer void without affecting third-party rights?


JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

    “Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they judge them; sometimes they forgive them”.

[Oscar Wilde]

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 it's 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 v. 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 v. Muriel [2016 (5) KHC 603] held otherwise and so did another Division Bench in Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2018 KHC 4655 = 2013 (3) KLT 1082]. The decisions of a learned Single Judge reported in Radhamani v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KHC 9] and Manju G.S. v. 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 jurisdicti

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