Case Law Details
Ashwin Ramesh Soni Vs Ramesh Bachaulal Soni (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13 April 2026 passed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal-I and Deputy Collector, Mumbai, which had partly allowed an application under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had declared void a registered Gift Deed dated 8 May 2023 relating to the Yashashree flat and directed the petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to his parents within sixty days. The Tribunal did not cancel the Gift Deed relating to another property, the Monte South flat, which was not the subject matter of the writ petition.
The parents had purchased the Yashashree flat in 2005 and later jointly purchased the Monte South flat in 2020 with the petitioner and his wife, each holding a 25% share. According to the parents, family disputes arose around 2020 and, after intervention by family members, an understanding was reached in March 2023 under which the petitioner agreed to maintain and care for them while they agreed to transfer the Yashashree flat in his favour. Two Gift Deeds dated 8 May 2023 were executed, with the parents bearing the stamp duty and registration charges. The arrangement subsequently failed, the parents left the Yashashree flat, and the developer declined to hand over possession of the Monte South flat after its transfer, following which the parents initiated proceedings seeking cancellation of both Gift Deeds and consequential reliefs.
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act. He asserted that he had actually purchased the Yashashree flat from his own funds in 2005 and that the Gift Deed merely restored title to its true owner. He further argued that his father was financially independent, engaged in a jewellery business, and owned other immovable properties, and therefore the parents were neither destitute nor incapable of maintaining themselves. He also submitted that the Tribunal had not recorded any finding that he had refused to maintain his parents, alleged that the proceedings had been initiated at the behest of his sisters, and argued that eviction would cause hardship to his family as the Yashashree flat was their sole residence.
The parents supported the Tribunal’s order, stating that both properties had been acquired from their own resources and gifted to the petitioner solely to preserve family harmony on the clear understanding that he would maintain and care for them throughout their lifetime. They submitted that persistent disputes ultimately compelled them to leave their own residence, defeating the object for which the Gift Deeds had been executed.
The High Court observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and social welfare legislation providing an expeditious remedy for the maintenance, welfare and protection of senior citizens. Referring to Section 23, the Court noted that a transfer may be declared void where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to discharge that obligation.
Examining the Gift Deed, the Court found that it expressly recorded that the petitioner had agreed to take care of the parents after execution of the Gift Deed. It also noted that the Gift Deed relating to the Monte South flat contained an identical obligation. The Court therefore held that the first essential condition under Section 23(1) stood satisfied.
Regarding the second requirement under Section 23(1), the Court found that the arrangement on the basis of which the Gift Deeds had been executed had completely failed. The relationship had deteriorated to the extent that the parents were compelled to vacate their own residence, while the Monte South flat was unavailable to them after its transfer. The Court held that these facts established the petitioner’s failure to fulfil the obligation that formed the foundation of the gift and found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s conclusions.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s submission regarding the parents’ financial independence, holding that the applicability of Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior citizen once the statutory conditions are satisfied. It also rejected the contention that the petitioner had originally purchased the Yashashree flat from his own funds, observing that this assertion was contrary to the recitals of the Gift Deed and could not override the written document. The allegation that the proceedings had been initiated at the instance of the petitioner’s sisters was held not to affect the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. The Court further held that the petitioner’s subsequent offer to maintain his parents or accommodate them in the flat could not revive a transfer that the statute deems to have been vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
Holding that it would not re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of manifest illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, the High Court found no merit in the writ petition. It dismissed the petition, directed the petitioner to comply forthwith with the Tribunal’s directions, and discharged the rule.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner is the son of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are senior citizens aged 68 and 60 years, respectively. The present Petition challenges the order dated 13th April, 2026 passed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal-I and Deputy Collector, Mumbai (“Tribunal”), in proceedings initiated by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Act”). By the impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the Application and inter alia declared the registered Gift Deed bearing No. BBE-4-7360-2023 dated 8th May 2023, to be void. The Petitioner was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of flat no.1103, Yashashree Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 (“Yashashree flat”) to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within sixty days. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3. The relevant facts for the purpose of this Petition are briefly stated as follows:-
i. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have four children, namely, the Petitioner and three daughters, all of whom are married and residing with their respective families. After his marriage, the Petitioner initially resided with Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
ii. On 25th March, 2005, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 purchased the Yashashree flat, where they resided with the Petitioner.
iii. On 11th December, 2020, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased another residential flat, being flat no.B-2308, Monte South Pilatus, Khatau Mill Compound, Byculla, Mumbai – 400008. This flat was jointly purchased along with the Petitioner and Petitioner’s wife, with each of them owning 25% share in the said flat.
iv. Around the year 2020, serious disputes arose between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, with the intervention of family and well-wishers, an understanding was arrived at in or about March, 2023 whereby the Petitioner agreed to look after and maintain his parents in all respect and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 agreed to transfer the Yashashree flat in his favour. In an attempt to restore harmony within the family, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed and registered two Gift Deeds dated 8th May, 2023 in respect of both the aforesaid flats. The stamp duty and registration charges for the transactions were borne by Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
v. The family arrangement did not last long. Soon thereafter, relations between the parties deteriorated, compelling Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate the Yashashree flat, which had been their residence. The Monte South flat was then under construction and since it had already been gifted to the Petitioner, the developer refused to hand over its possession to Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Left without any residence, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted proceedings before the Tribunal under Sections 5 and 23 of the Act, seeking cancellation of Gift Deeds for both the flats and consequential reliefs, including restoration of possession of the properties and return of their personal documents, bank passbooks, ATM cards, GST records and other belongings.
(vi) By the impugned order dated 13th April, 2026, the Tribunal partly allowed the Application. The impugned order directed cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 8th May, 2023 with respect to Yashashree flat and further directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Yashashree flat to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within 60 days of the order. No orders are passed for cancellation of the Gift Deed of the Monte South flat. The said flat is not a subject matter of this Petition.
4. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, assails the impugned order mainly on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act. He submits that the Yashashree flat was, in fact, purchased by the Petitioner from his own funds in the year 2005 and that the subsequent Gift Deed merely restored title to its true owner, i.e., the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 is financially independent, carries on a jewellery business and owns other immovable properties. Thus, the Respondents are neither destitute nor incapable of maintaining themselves. The Tribunal has also failed to record any finding that the Petitioner has actually refused to maintain Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore the provisions of the Act are not attracted.
5. Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the proceedings before the Tribunal have been initiated at the behest of the Petitioner’s sisters with an oblique motive to deprive the Petitioner of the gifted properties. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the Yashashree flat constitutes the sole residence of the Petitioner, his wife and two children and eviction from it would cause them grave hardship. On all these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order and submits that it is well-reasoned and as per section 23(1) of the Act. He submits that both the flats were acquired by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from their own resources and were voluntarily gifted to the Petitioner solely to preserve family harmony and on the clear understanding that the Petitioner would maintain and care for his aged parents throughout their lifetime. Instead, due to persistent disputes, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were compelled to leave their own residence, defeating the very object for which the Gift Deeds had been executed. Hence, the Petition ought to be dismissed with costs.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
7. We have perused the record and considered the rival submissions. In our view, there is no merit in the present Petition.
8. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and social welfare legislation enacted to provide an expeditious remedy for the maintenance, welfare and protection of senior citizens. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act recognises the gradual erosion of the traditional joint family system and the increasing vulnerability of elderly parents to neglect, abandonment and deprivation of financial and emotional support. The Act, therefore, creates an effective statutory mechanism not only to secure maintenance, but also to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
9. Section 23 of the Act falls under Chapter V – “Protection of Life and Property of Senior Citizen”. For convenience, the same is extracted:
“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.”
10. Section 23 of the Act embodies the legislative recognition that transfers made by elderly parents in favour of their children or relatives are often motivated by love, affection and the legitimate expectation that they would be cared for in their advancing years. A plain reading of Section 23(1) shows that the Tribunal may declare a transfer void where two essential requirements are fulfilled, namely, (i) the property is transferred by the senior citizen subject to the condition that the transferee would provide the transferor with basic amenities and physical needs; and (ii) the transferee has refused or failed to discharge that obligation. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the statute creates a legal fiction by deeming the transfer to have been brought about by fraud, coercion or undue influence, thereby entitling the senior citizen to avoid the transfer. Examined in the light of the above statutory framework, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.
11. A perusal of the Gift Deed demonstrates that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had gifted the property on the express promise and agreement that the Petitioners shall take care of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all respect after execution of the Gift Deed. The relevant clauses in the recitals of the Gift Deed make this position clear and for convenience are extracted:
‘B) The Donors hereby relinquished his rights, title and interest of the said Flat Premise in favour of the Donee forever.
C) The Donee shall and will hereafter hold, possess, use, occupy and enjoy the said shares of the said Flat Premise in the aforesaid manner for his own use and benefit without any suit, lawful eviction, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever made by the Donors or any person claiming through or on behalf of the Donors.
F) The Donee have agreed and shall take care in all respect of the Donors after the execution of this Gift Deed.’
The Gift Deed for the Monte South flat also records identical obligation. Thus, the first essential condition of Section 23(1) is fully satisfied in the present case.
12. As regards the second essential requirement under Section 23(1) of the Act, the record demonstrates that the mutual arrangement on the basis of which Gift Deeds were executed completely failed. Instead of ensuring security and care to his parents, the relationship deteriorated to such an extent that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were compelled to vacate their own residence. This is sufficient for invoking Section 23 of the Act. The Monte South flat, which had also been transferred to the Petitioner, was unavailable to them as the developer declined to hand over possession after the transfer. Consequently, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were left without the benefit of either property. These facts clearly establish the Petitioner’s failure to fulfill the very obligation which constituted the foundation of the gift. We find no perversity or jurisdictional error in the conclusions of the impugned order, which are based on factual assertions.
13. The submission that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are financially independent or possess other assets is misconceived. The applicability of Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior citizen. Once the statutory conditions of Section 23 are satisfied, the transfer can be declared as void. Equally untenable is the Petitioner’s contention that the Yashashree flat was purchased from his own funds and that the Gift Deeds merely restored title to its true owner. These are bald assertions and contrary to Recitals of the Gift Deed. Such oral pleas cannot be accepted in view of the written document. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in proceeding on the basis of the admitted title of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
14. The allegation that the proceedings have been instituted at the behest of the Petitioner’s sisters is disputed. Such allegations neither detract from the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal nor constitute a ground to interfere with its findings in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner’s offer to now maintain Respondent Nos.1 and 2 or to accommodate them in the Yashashree flat also does not advance his case. Such belated and subsequent offer cannot revive a transfer which the statute deems to have been vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
15. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality warranting interference.
16. We therefore find no merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner shall forthwith comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal.
17. Rule is discharged.
Author Bio
