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