The absence of an explicit maintenance clause in a gift deed does not preclude the annulment of the deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act if such obligation can be inferred.

CAV ORDER

1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any writ for quash /set aside as per ANNEXURE-"A" passed by the 2nd respondent dated 22-10-2024 in case No.M.A.G(1)/02/2024;

b. Quash the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent dated 19-12-2023 in case No.PA.PO.SAM and SENIOR NA.RA.KA.SAM:32/23-24 in so far as the Petitioner is concerned by allowing this writ petition as per ANNEXURE-B.

c. Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 4th Respondent to effect the mutation in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the schedule property;

d. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner, a senior citizen, had initiated proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), seeking annulment of a gift deed. The said application came to be dismissed by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 19.12.2023. An appeal preferred thereagainst before Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 22.10.2024. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the authorities below, the Petitioner is before this Court.

3. The Petitioner is the father of Respondent No.5 and the grandfather of Respondent No.6. He is the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.105, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, with 6 guntas of karab, situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Hebburu Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The Petitioner has four children, namely, Shivamma, Puttamma, Thimmaiah and Venkatesh.

4. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that his daughters Shivamma and Puttamma assured him that they would take care of his maintenance, well- being, and daily needs during his old age and, on the basis of such assurance, had fraudulently procured a gift deed dated 19.04.2023, registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Consequent upon registration of the said gift deed, the names of the said daughters were mutated in the revenue records.

5. It is further asserted that soon thereafter, the daughters neglected the Petitioner and failed to provide him with food, shelter, and other basic necessities. It is in this background that the Petitioner filed an application under Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2007, seeking annulment of the gift deed dated 19.04.2023.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, one of the daughters, Shivamma, expired. She was survived by her son, Respondent No.6, who was brought on record as her legal representative.

7. The other daughter, Respondent No.5 – Puttamma, entered appearance before the Assistant Commissioner and categorically stated that she had no objection to the application being allowed. However, Respondent No.6 filed objections contending that the Petitioner was possessed of several ancestral properties and that the application under Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2007 was motivated by ill will and mala fides.

8. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application primarily on the ground that the gift deed did not contain an express clause obligating the donees to maintain the Petitioner. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed, affirming the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner.

9. Sri Narasimha Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is an illiterate senior citizen and that the gift deed was drafted at the instance of his daughters, with the Petitioner merely affixing his thumb impression.