Senior Citizen Tribunal should ensure law is not misused by children denied share in property: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently directed Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act to ensure that the provisions under the Act are not misused by children who are denied share in immovable properties owned by senior citizens. [Nitin Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai & Ors.].Single-judge Justice Sandeep V Marne said that provisions of the Act were being used as a machinery for settling property disputes between heirs of senior citizens.“The provision of Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens. However, unfortunately in many cases, it is observed that such a course of action is taken by the parties. The Tribunal therefore has to ensure that the provision is not misused by children who are denied share in the immovable properties by seeking to get gift-deed annulled by filing application through senior citizens”, the court said..Justice Marne granted relief to a man who challenged a Senior Citizen Tribunal order of October 2022 that nullified gift deeds executed in his favour by his father..The petitioner, Nitin Gupta, claimed that his father had executed gift deeds in his favour with respect to three flats in 2019 and 2020..In February 2022, the father applied to the Tribunal seeking return of various properties gifted by him to the petitioner and payment of maintenance of ₹50, 000 per month.The application before the Tribunal stated that the petitioner got four gift deeds executed and thereafter ill-treated him by removing servants and confining him to one room. The father further stated that in 2021, he left Mumbai to reside with his other son in Surat and that son purportedly had neither any source of income nor any property left with him. .The Tribunal declared the deed as null and void. It also directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the three flats to the father.The petitioner challenged the Tribunal order before High Court. He alleged that his father had moved the Tribunal at the behest of his sibling, the other son in Surat who was purportedly interested in said properties..Justice Marne remarked that section 23(1) (revocation transfer of immovable properties in certain circumstances) of the Senior Citizens Act ought not be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens.“The provision operates as an exception to a validly effected transactions of transfer of immovable properties which can be revoked in rare and exceptional circumstances by the Maintenance Tribunal,” the Court observed..Justice Marne set aside the order and directed the petitioner to provide residence to his father in one of the flats and pay him ₹25,000 per month as maintenance..Senior advocate GS Godbole with advocates Manuj Borkar and Prasad Borkar appeared for Nitin Gupta.Advocates Ameet Mehta, Sheetal Pandya and Pratiksha Udeshi briefed by Solicis Lex appeared for the other son.Additional government pleader Uma Palsuledesai appeared for State.[Read Order]