Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently refused to stay an order of a senior citizens appellate tribunal that cancelled a gift deed for a 600 square feet flat in Powai, which was transferred by a couple to their London-based son. The father and mother are 90 and 86 years old, respectively.
Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna, on January 13, refused interim relief on the son’s petition to quash and set aside the Nov 2022 order of the additional collector (suburbs), the appellate tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
The parents had filed a complaint with the sub-divisional officer, the senior citizens tribunal, against their son, who they said neglected to maintain them. They contended that he has two bungalows in London, where he resides. Taking advantage of his father’s illness, he took their signatures and got a gift deed executed in his favour in December 2013.
The tribunal, in December 2020, partly allowed the parents’ application, and the son was “strictly warned and restrained from causing any hindrance” to his parents in living peacefully in the flat till they are alive. On their appeal, the appellate tribunal cancelled the gift deed.
In his petition, the son denied he forced his parents to execute the gift deed for the flat. It was transferred to him only because his five older siblings were attempting to claim their share in it. He had paid 80% of the amount for the flat and also for its maintenance, interiors, repairs, and purchase of white goods for it. He clarified that he “never attempted to oust his parents from the flat and will not do so.”
The parents’ advocate, V A Gangal, argued this is a “classic case of a son who can be so ungrateful”. He said the son came to the hospital and took the parents’ signatures. They later learnt it was a gift deed. The judges perused the parents’ application filed before the tribunal, adding, “If what is stated in the application is to be believed, a strong case was made out before the tribunal.”
They prima facie observed that the parents owned the flat and it was allotted to them by the state govt. “The gift deed categorically records that in consideration of natural love, affection ‘as the donee will take care of the donors,’ the flat was being gifted by the parents to the son. Thus, there was an obligation of the petitioner (son) to maintain his parents in these late years of their life as undertaken by him in the gift deed,” they said.
They also said it is settled law that the tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside a gift deed made on a condition that the children maintain their parents. “In the present case, the petitioner appears to have brazenly refused to maintain the parents after he obtained a gift deed in his favour,” they added. The judges admitted the petition for final hearing.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently refused to stay an order of a senior citizens appellate tribunal that cancelled a gift deed for a 600 square feet flat in Powai, which was transferred by a couple to their London-based son. The father and mother are 90 and 86 years old, respectively.
Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna, on January 13, refused interim relief on the son’s petition to quash and set aside the Nov 2022 order of the additional collector (suburbs), the appellate tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
The parents had filed a complaint with the sub-divisional officer, the senior citizens tribunal, against their son, who they said neglected to maintain them. They contended that he has two bungalows in London, where he resides. Taking advantage of his father’s illness, he took their signatures and got a gift deed executed in his favour in December 2013.
The tribunal, in December 2020, partly allowed the parents’ application, and the son was “strictly warned and restrained from causing any hindrance” to his parents in living peacefully in the flat till they are alive. On their appeal, the appellate tribunal cancelled the gift deed.
In his petition, the son denied he forced his parents to execute the gift deed for the flat. It was transferred to him only because his five older siblings were attempting to claim their share in it. He had paid 80% of the amount for the flat and also for its maintenance, interiors, repairs, and purchase of white goods for it. He clarified that he “never attempted to oust his parents from the flat and will not do so.”
The parents’ advocate, V A Gangal, argued this is a “classic case of a son who can be so ungrateful”. He said the son came to the hospital and took the parents’ signatures. They later learnt it was a gift deed. The judges perused the parents’ application filed before the tribunal, adding, “If what is stated in the application is to be believed, a strong case was made out before the tribunal.”
They prima facie observed that the parents owned the flat and it was allotted to them by the state govt. “The gift deed categorically records that in consideration of natural love, affection ‘as the donee will take care of the donors,’ the flat was being gifted by the parents to the son. Thus, there was an obligation of the petitioner (son) to maintain his parents in these late years of their life as undertaken by him in the gift deed,” they said.
They also said it is settled law that the tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside a gift deed made on a condition that the children maintain their parents. “In the present case, the petitioner appears to have brazenly refused to maintain the parents after he obtained a gift deed in his favour,” they added. The judges admitted the petition for final hearing.