Express Maintenance Clause Not Mandatory To Cancel Transfer Of Senior Citizen's Property: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the absence of an express condition in a transfer of property or release deed requiring the transferee to maintain a senior citizen does not, by itself, bar the authority under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act from cancelling the document.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that where a senior citizen specifically pleads that the their property was transferred subject to an underlying understanding or agreement that the transferee would provide basic amenities and care in old age, the Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to examine the claim under Section 23.

Section 23 (Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances) states that if a senior citizen transfers property on the condition that the receiver will look after them, and the receiver subsequently fails to provide basic amenities and physical needs, then such transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

The Court said, “An express condition in the Release Deed requiring the releasee to maintain the releasor is not, by itself, a prerequisite for invoking Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.”

Distinguishing between the existence of an express condition and the existence of an understanding or agreement forming the basis of the transfer, the Court observed that Section 23 of the 2007 Act cannot be applied or excluded solely by looking at whether the document contains a specific clause requiring the transferee to maintain the transferor.

It added, “Where the senior citizen specifically alleges that the transfer was made on the understanding that the transferee would provide for his needs, the Assistant Commissioner is required to examine that claim in the light of the pleadings and the surrounding circumstances. The absence of an express condition in the document does not, by itself, deprive the authority of jurisdiction to consider the application.”

The dispute arose between the 75-year-old second respondent, G. Bairappa, and his daughter Drakshayini and her husband Chandru Y, the petitioners in the case.

Bairappa executed a registered release deed on January 9, 2025, relinquishing his rights over 1 acre 30 guntas of agricultural land in Hunasekatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, in favour of his daughter. After his wife passed away and he was left without support, Bairappa approached the Assistant Commissioner & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimoga, under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act seeking cancellation of the release deed. Following this, the Assistant Commissioner allowed his application and set aside the deed.

The petitioners submitted that the release deed contained no express condition requiring the daughter to maintain or care for her father; hence, Section 23 could not be invoked. The petitioners further contended that the transfer was not a gratuitous and was executed for consideration of Rs 17,25.000 under a sale agreement dated July 31, 2023. To support this, they relied on a receipt dated August 1, 2023, to show Rs 17,25,000 was paid to Bairappa's sons, who agreed to settle the property.

The High Court found discrepancies in the documents relied upon by the petitioners.

“The receipt, stated to have been executed on 01.08.2023, refers to a Will dated 09.08.2023. The receipt could not have been executed on 01.08.2023 while referring to a Will that was executed subsequently. The receipt is, therefore, a doubtful document and cannot be relied upon by this Court,” the Court said.

“Even otherwise, the receipt does not refer to any amount having been received by Respondent No. 2. The receipt refers to an amount received by the brothers of Petitioner No. 1. Hence, the consideration, if any, is, even according to the petitioner, alleged to have been paid to the brothers and not to Respondent No. 2 or their mother. The siblings cannot enter into a transaction or arrangement among themselves for the purposes of dividing the property of Respondent No. 2 and impose an obligation on Respondent No. 2 to execute a Release Deed in favour of the Petitioner,” the Court noted, holding that such amount, even if paid, would not constitute consideration received by Bairappa.

The High Court said that when the senior citizen denies that a transfer of property has been undertaken for consideration, then the transferee is required to place material to support their claim of paying the said amount.

“In the present case, however, the conclusion does not rest on any single omission or discrepancy. The discrepancy between the receipt and the Agreement of Sale regarding payment of the entire consideration, and the circumstances surrounding the reference to the Will must be considered cumulatively… The Petitioners have not placed sufficient material to dispel those doubts,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and referred the matter to the Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department for appropriate action.

A word of caution

The High Court took note of the seriousness of such disputes arising between elderly parents and their children.

To reduce the risk of such disputed, the Court said, “Where a senior citizen intends a transfer to be accompanied by an obligation to provide maintenance or care, it would be prudent to record that obligation clearly in the relevant document and specify, as far as practicable, the nature of the support expected. The transferor should also consider whether sufficient property or financial resources are being retained to meet future needs.”

The Court also highlighted the obligations of the registering authorities and observed, “The registering authorities, including Sub-Registrars, must discharge their statutory duties with due diligence and in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and the applicable rules. Within the scope of their lawful powers and procedures, registering authorities should take appropriate care to ensure that an executant understands the nature and legal effect of the document and that the applicable registration requirements are satisfied.”

The High Court further said that the state government, too, should examine the measures to increase awareness among senior citizens about legal consequences of relinquishing property and remedies available to them.

It however clarified that its observations are intended to draw attention to the broader concerns that arise when senior citizens transfer property in circumstances where their future security may depend upon the support of family members. It does not alter the statutory powers or duties of any authority the court said.