February 2024GeneralLatestLegalReal Estate

Karantaka High Court relief to 85 years old lady senior citizen, who gifted coffee estate to the son, for maintenance of Rs.7 lakhs under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The petitioner – octogenarian has approached the court of law for justice.  The petitioner owned about 48 acres of coffee estate.   She has four sons.  Respondent no.1 is the third son and respondent no.2 is the grand-daughter – daughter of her late first son.

Out of 48 acres of estate, the eldest son got 24 acres in the suit of 2016 for specific performance.

Respondent nos.1 and 2 persuaded the petitioner to execute gift deeds of remaining 24 acres in their favour and assured to pay Rs.7 lakhs every year in her bank account.  Accordingly the gift deeds were executed in 14th and 17th September, 2016 for 11 acres each without incorporating the condition of payment of Rs.7 lakhs every year.

Rs.48 lakhs were paid to the petitioner for 2016 to 2019.  However, thereafter, there was no payment.  The petitioner learnt that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are trying to alienate the property.

In the proceedings of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner allowed her application and set aside the gift deeds.

In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held that the gift deeds did not mention that the donees would take care of the petitioner.   However, the respondents were directed to take care and provide amenities to the petitioner.

In the  Writ Petition, the High Court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had annulled the gift deeds.  If the said order was accepted, it would mean that the property would be restored back to the petitioner.   However, the petitioner being 85 years of age would not be in a position to take care of the property. The petitioner requires maintenance and has knocked the doors of the court. In the peculiar facts, annulling the appellate order or restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner is not required as those issues need not be decided in the present case.  Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 2 were directed to pay maintenance as was paid between 2016 to 2019.

Judgment dated 20.12.2023 in W.P.No.9943 of 2022 (GM-RES) of Smt. Apparanda Shanthi Bopanna Vs. A.B.Ganapathy and others

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat
Hello,
Are you looking for legal help?