- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shabeen Martin v. Muriel
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants filed a writ petition challenging orders Ext.P6 and Ext.P8 passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The first respondent had executed a settlement deed (Ext.P1) in favour of the appellants. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 23 of the Act seeking to invalidate Ext.P1, which was allowed by the authority through Ext.P6 order. The appellants' appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P8. The writ petition challenging these decisions was dismissed, leading to the present writ appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is maintainable in the absence of a specific reservation or condition in the settlement deed that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
- The scope and interpretation of Section 23 of the Act concerning the invalidation of property transfers made subject to conditions related to care and maintenance of senior citizens.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants contended that since Ext.P1 settlement deed did not contain a specific reservation or condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, an application invoking Section 23 of the Act was not maintainable.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Radhamani v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 185] | Principles governing the application of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 | The Court affirmed the principles laid down in this judgment to support its decision to uphold the authority's power to invalidate the transfer deed under Section 23. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides that if a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer can be declared void by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that the statute does not require the transfer document itself to expressly contain such a condition. Instead, if evidence satisfies the authorities that the transferee has failed to provide the required amenities and physical needs, the authorities may invoke their power under Section 23 to invalidate the transfer. The Court reasoned that requiring an express condition in the deed would defeat the object and purpose of the Act, which aims to protect senior citizens from neglect following property transfers. The Court agreed with the learned Single Judge's view and affirmed the applicability of the principles in Radhamani v. State of Kerala.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the orders invalidating the property transfer under Section 23 of the Act. The direct effect is the affirmation of the authority's power to invalidate transfers where the transferee fails to provide basic amenities to the senior citizen, even if the transfer document does not explicitly state such a condition. No new precedent was established beyond affirming existing principles.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938 WA. NO.1851/2016 () IN WP(C). NO.8193/2014 -------------------------------------------
[FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-07-2016 IN WP(C) NO.8193/2014 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.]
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS IN W.P:
----------------------------------------
1. SHABEEN MARTIN, W/O WILLIAMSREE JAYAN,
AGED 45 YEARS, SHAKKEENA, PULACHITARA, VANIAKULAM POST,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT-679 522.
2. BEENA MARTIN, W/O.SHABEEN MARTIN, AGED 42 YEARS,
SHAKKEENA, PULACHITARA, VANIAKULAM POST,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 522.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN W.P:
---------------------------------------------
1. MURIEL, W/O. LATE REJINOLD BEEMELLO,
AGED 75, HOUSE NO.10 SNEEHATHEERAM RESIDENCE,
POST SOUTH CHITTOOR, COCHIN-682 027.
2. SHERLEY ROBINSON,
W/O. ROBINSON, AGED 77 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.10SNEEHATHEERAM RESIDENCE,
POST SOUTH CHITTOOR, COCHIN-682 027.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
KRJ
1
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J.
&
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No.1851 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rdday of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J The petitioners in W.P(C) No.8193 of 2014 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Act'). The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. On the materials available, we find that the first respondent had executed Ext.P1 settlement deed in favour of the appellants. Subsequently, an application was filed under the Act invoking the power of the authority under Section 23 seeking to invalidate Ext.P1 and that was allowed by Ext.P6 order. The appeal filed by the appellants was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed, which came to be dismissed.
2
WA.1851/16 -:2:-
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was relying on Section 23 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of a specific reservation made in Ext.P1 settlement deed, providing for the conditions subject to which the transfer was made, an application invoking the power under Section 23 was not maintainable. Section 23 of the Act reads thus:
23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.-(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2),
3
WA.1851/16 -:3:-
action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section
(1) of Section 5."
5. Section 23(1) shows that where, after the commencement of the Act, a senior citizen has transferred his property by way of a gift deed or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion, or under undue influence. Reading of this provision, itself, would show that it is not the legislative requirement or intent that the document evidencing the transfer, either by gift or otherwise, should itself contain an express condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs of the transfer. On the other hand, if there are evidence to the satisfaction of the authorities under the Act that the requirements of Section 23 are satisfied in a case, it is always open to the authorities to invoke their power under Section 23 of the Act and invalidate the document. Such an understanding of the section, according to us, would only advance the object of the Act. On the other hand, if the contention now advanced is accepted, that will defeat the very object and purpose of the Act.
4
WA.1851/16 -:4:-
6. In the above view of of the matter, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and affirm the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in Radhamani v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 185].
We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar,
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Antony Dominic, Judge
krj.4/10/16
5
Alert