A property transfer by a senior citizen can only be declared void under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the deed explicitly stipulates that the transfer is conditional upon the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN IN NO.MAG(HNR) 17/2022-23 DATED 01.08.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

''(i) To quashing the order passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in No.MAG(HNR)17/2022-23 dated 01.08.2023 as per Annexure-E;

(ii) Directing the respondent to pay costs of this petition to the petitioners, and

(iii) Grand such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. ''

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of deed of gift dated 30.08.2012 as per Annexure-A, respondent No.2 had conveyed the subject property in favour of one Usharani, who was the mother-in-law of the petitioner.

3. He submits that originally respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. As against which respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, who by the impugned order had allowed the said appeal cancelling deed of gift dated 30.08.2012 that had been executed by respondent No.2 in favour of daughter-in-law namely Usharani. The said Usharani was the mother-in-law of the petitioner herein. He submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in the light of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the respondent No.2 was not being taken care of by the original donee, the order passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. He further submits that the deceased respondent No.2 had two sons and a daughter and except the daughter who is now impleaded, there are no other legal heirs. Hence, he submits that the order cannot be interfered with.

5. Heard and perused the records.

6. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 reads as under:

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. —

(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred 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 sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramthi Devi and Another reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 at paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the sa