Mumbai: In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot cancel a gift deed merely on the 'vague' allegations of 'non-maintenance' of the senior citizen by their children or the person, whom they have 'gifted' their property. The court also noted that the tribunal does not have the power to decide on the validity of execution of a gift deed.
The court quashed the order of the tribunal setting aside a gift deed executed by a mother in favour of her elder daughter and son-in-law in 2016, by which she gifted her two flats in Kolhapur to them. The Hc was hearing a petition filed by the elder daughter and her husband challenging the December 2022 order of the tribunal.
The mother, 73, claimed that the daughter and her husband failed to keep their promise of maintaining her and deprived her of the basic physical need and other amenities She also alleged that the gift deed was obtained fraudulently as she was under influence of some medicines. Hence she approached the tribunal seeking its cancellation.
However, the daughter claimed that her younger sister “instigated” the mother to make such allegations.
Justice RM Joshi notes that the mother only made some vague allegations and did not 'specify' the alleged non-maintenance. “… a passing reference has been made about the senior citizen not being maintained by the petitioners. In absence of specific ground being raised of not been provided with basic amenities and physical need, on vague averment and without recording any finding to that effect, it would not be open for the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the gift deed executed by respondent No.1 (mother),” Justice Joshi noted on August 29.
The court held that dispute with regard to validity of execution of document cannot be gone into in the proceeding under Section 23 even indirectly / incidentally and that this proceeding can never be allowed to become an alternative / bypass to the challenge of validity of document before a civil Court.
It then quashed the tribunal‘s order. It also took on record the undertaking given by the petitions that the mother will ”not be evicted” from the flat in her lifetime. As an abundant precaution, the HC has restrained petitioners from creating third party rights ”in the manner whatsoever, during the lifetime of the mother”.
The HC has also left it open to the mother to challenge the execution of the gift deed on ”every permissible ground available in law before the competent court”.
