Kamal Ghorui
BENGALURU: Reaffirming that elderly parents should not be left destitute after placing trust in their children, Karnataka high court has cancelled a gift deed executed by an 84-year-old father from Tumakuru in favour of his two adult daughters after they allegedly neglected him.Invoking the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the hight court set aside the transfer of agricultural land made by petitioner Venkataiah, holding that the law protects senior citizens who part with their property on the expectation of care and support.
The court noted that Venkataiah had said the gift deed was prepared by his daughters Shivamma and Puttamma as he was illiterate and unaware of its contents, and that he had affixed his thumb impression only on the assurance that he would be taken care of.“The trusting nature of senior citizens, particularly in rural Karnataka, and their emotional and financial dependence on children is a social reality expressly recognised by the statute,” the judge observed.Man transferred 2.4-acre land to two daughters as gift deedTaking note of Venkataiah’s advanced age, rural background, close family relationship and the neglect that followed the transfer of property, the court held that the gift was clearly linked to an expectation of care and maintenance.Venkataiah had executed a gift deed in favour of his daughters, Shivamma and Puttamma, transferring about 2.4 acres of land at Doddagollahalli village in Hebburu hobli of Tumakuru taluk and district. He later alleged that after the transfer, his daughters failed to look after him, prompting him to approach the assistant commissioner, who acts as a tribunal under the Act.The tribunal, however, dismissed his complaint on Dec 19, 2023, holding that the gift deed did not contain an express clause obligating the daughters to maintain him. This view was upheld by the deputy commissioner on Oct 22, 2024, leading Venkataiah to move the High Court.Allowing the petition, Justice Suraj Govindaraj disagreed with the interpretation adopted by the authorities. The court held that an explicit maintenance clause in a gift deed is not a mandatory requirement under Section 23(1) of the Act. Such an obligation, the judge said, can be inferred from the facts, circumstances and conduct of the parties.Justice Govindaraj described the reasoning of the assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner as “legally flawed” and based on a misunderstanding of the Act, which, he said, acknowledges that elderly parents often rely on trust, moral assurances and family bonds rather than strict legal formalities while transferring property to their children.
