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

2016 Supreme(P&H) 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
CR No. 7598 of 2015 (O&M)
Jagmeet Kaur Pannu
v.
Ranjit Kaur Pannu
{Decided on 22/01/2016}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate.

Headnote:Parents and Senior Citizens Act--Parent cannot revoke a gift voluntarily made to his/her child--It must be proved that child was not willing to maintain or refused or failed to provide for such amenities and physical needs.

       (A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--Merely on assertion of parent that the daughter is not behaving properly and used filthy language over telephone is not a ground to cancel the gift deed--Condition of maintenance should have been breached by refusal of basic amenity and physical need demanded by parent so as to entitle them to revoke the gift. (Para 12)

       (B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--Parent cannot revoke a gift voluntarily made to his/her child--It must be proved that child was not willing to maintain or refused or failed to provide for such amenities and physical needs.

       (C) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--Condition of maintaining parent need not to be expressly mentioned in gift deed--Parent/donor makes the gift under the belief and expectation that child/donor will support him and provide basic amenities and look after the physical needs--For situation where such expectation is not fulfilled S.23 is enacted. (Para 11)

       (D) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--With or without the provision of Section 23, the polemics of judicial interpretation have always been that a gift cannot be cancelled or revoked at the whims of the transferor. (Para 11)

       (E) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.126--Gift deed--Revocation of--A gift followed by a direction to maintain the donor is only a pious wish and not to be presumed as conditional. (Para 10)

       (F) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--The two enactments have to be interpreted in such a way that if the provisions can exist side by side, such a harmonious construction shall be made--If there is, however, a direct conflict by the bare reading of provisions then the special legislation will override a general legislation--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.126. (Para 8)

       (G) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S.23--Gift deed--Revocation of--Tribunal without examining whether the documents contained any condition and whether there had been any demand made by the mother on the daughter that provided the proof for the Tribunal to render a finding that the transferee refused to provide such amenities and physical needs. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Mr. K.Kannan, J.: (Oral) - I THE MATTER PUT TO CHALLENGE

1. The revision petition is against the order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short the ‘Act’) directing that the gift executed by the mother in favour of the daughter is voidable at her instance and hence ordered to be voided. This was on a plea that the mother had executed the gift in favour of her daughter with reference to 25% of the share through a registered instrument on 03.01.2013 and that her own hope that she will be supported and maintained by the donee was belied by her conduct and therefore the petitioner was entitled to have the document voided through the order of the Tribunal. On notice of a plea for voiding the document made under Section 23, the respondent stated her objections and denied the assertions that there was any vitiating circumstances contemplated by law to render it void and that further there had been no demand of maintenance nor was there any denial on her part to provide the basic amenities or physical needs of the transferor.

II THE GROUNDS FOR AVOIDING GIFT-3 FACETS

2. The Tribunal relied on the assertion of the mother that the daughter was not behaving with her properly and abused her with filthy language and treated these assertions as justifying the demand for the document being declared null and void. This order passed by the Tribunal on 23.07.2015 is a subject of challenge before this Court. Learned senior counsel read out to me the terms of the documents that has been ordered to be voided and pointed out to three requirements under Section 23 of the Act before the order could be passed. Section itself would be required to be reproduced:

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances

1.Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

2.Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part , thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

3.If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under subsections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organization referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

3. First requirement according to the senior counsel, is that there shall be a condition attached that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs, secondly, such a transferee failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs, thirdly, the transfer will be deemed to have been made by fraud and coercion and undue influence, or at the option of the transferor to be treated as void and declared as such by the Tribunal.

III TERMS OF DOCUMENT EXAMINED

4. The terms of the documents creating a transfer would, therefore, require to be seen whether the condition as contemplated under Section 23 has been referred to in the document or there was any scope for imposing such condition. The preamble portion that is relevant would be the following:

“ AND WHEREAS the Transferee being the daughter of the transferor, the transferor has great love and affection for the transferee and out of this love and affection the said transferor has decided to transfer the 25% share of house No. 2560, Sector 35-C Chandigarh in favour of the said transferee and the said transferee has also accepted th










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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