Legal Representatives Cannot Question Annulment Of Gift Deed By Senior Citizen Raising Derivative Defences Unavailable To Original Donee: Karnataka High Court

The Court emphasised that rights asserted by such a claimant are purely derivative in nature and cannot be elevated to frustrate the statutory remedy provided under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, once the jurisdictional conditions for annulment are established.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking annulment of a gift deed executed in favour of his daughters, alleging failure to provide care and maintenance. The challenge arose after authorities rejected the application on technical grounds, despite one donee admitting the petitioner’s case.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while examining the statutory framework governing senior citizens’ welfare and the legal status of derivative claims through a deceased transferee, and whether such a claimant could independently resist annulment, observed: “Once the jurisdictional facts required under Section 23 are established, namely, that the transfer was made by a senior citizen and that the transferee has failed to honour the obligation of maintenance, the consequence of annulment follows by operation of law”.

Upon such annulment, the Bench explained, “the transfer itself stands effaced, and all rights, interests, and claims flowing from or traceable to such transfer necessarily perish with it.”

The Bench accordingly held: “In this legal framework, it is impermissible for a derivative claimant to seek to sustain the transfer by raising defences that were either unavailable to, or consciously abandoned by, the original transferee, …the legal heirs of a transferee cannot be permitted to frustrate or dilute the statutory remedy by interposing defences which the principal party has chosen not to pursue”.

Background

The proceedings arose from an application filed by a senior citizen seeking annulment of a gift deed executed in favour of his daughters under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The senior citizen alleged that the transfer was premised on an obligation of care and maintenance, which the donees had failed to honour, thereby attracting the statutory consequence of annulment.

During the pendency of the proceedings, one of the donees died and was represented by a legal heir. The surviving donee admitted the foundational facts pleaded by the senior citizen, including the circumstances surrounding the execution of the gift deed and the alleged failure to provide care and maintenance.

Despite this admission, the legal representative of the deceased donee sought to independently oppose annulment of the transfer, asserting a claim in respect of the property flowing from the original gift deed and disputing the invocation of Section 23.

Court’s Observation

The Karnataka High Court examined whether the statutory jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was properly invoked. It was observed that “Section 23, would be attracted where a senior citizen parts with property in expectation of care, and such expectation is defeated by neglect or refusal”.

Addressing the contention whether an express maintenance clause was mandatory in the gift deed, the Court rejected a narrow documentary interpretation. It clarified that Section 23 does not require an explicit recital in the instrument itself. Instead, the Bench stated that “express recital in the gift deed obligating the donees to maintain the senior citizen is not mandatory for invoking Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007, and that such obligation can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties”.

The Court then examined the reasoning adopted by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim solely because the gift deed lacked an express maintenance clause. While stating that Section 23 of the Act of 2007 embodies the doctrine of constructive fraud, the Bench explained that “it proceeds not on proof of deceit in the classical sense, but on the abuse of a position of trust and dominance by the transferee over a vulnerable senior citizen”.

The Bench accordingly held that the Assistant Commissioner and, subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner were not justified in rejecting the Petitioner’s application solely on the ground that the gift deed does not contain an explicit clause regarding the maintenance of the Petitioner.

On the evidentiary value of admissions, the Court noted that one of the donees had filed a memo expressly admitting the foundational facts and expressing no objection to annulment. The Court held that such an admission is substantive in nature and lends direct corroboration to the invocation of Section 23. It was observed that this admission could not be ignored while assessing objections raised by parties claiming derivative rights.

Turning to the question concerning the locus of a legal representative of a deceased donee, the Court reaffirmed that a legal representative cannot enlarge or improve the rights of the original transferee. Proceedings under Section 23, the Court clarified, are not conventional civil title adjudications but special welfare proceedings focused on whether the transfer stands vitiated by failure of care.

“Once the transfer in favour of the donees stands vitiated under Section 23 on account of neglect and constructive fraud, all derivative claims necessarily collapse as a matter of law”, the Bench remarked while further holding that permitting such a legal representative to assert an interest in the property without discharging, or even acknowledging, the obligation to care for the Petitioner “would amount to conferring a legal advantage unaccompanied by statutory responsibility, and such an interpretation would defeat the protective purpose of Section 23 and render the statutory remedy illusory.”

The Court also reiterated a broader property principle, stating that children acquire no vested right in the self-acquired property of a parent during the parent’s lifetime, while underscoring that “once the statutory conditions for annulment are satisfied, the transfer stands undone by operation of law, and all rights flowing from or traceable to such transfer necessarily fall with it”.

Finally, addressing the validity of the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities, the Court held that their conclusions were vitiated by perversity, non-consideration of material evidence, and misunderstanding of the welfare jurisdiction under Section 23. A mechanical insistence on express recital, without examining implied conditions and conduct, was found legally unsustainable and warranting supervisory interference.

Conclusion

The Court therefore concluded that no independent right, title or interest could be asserted by the derivative claimant in respect of the self-acquired property of the senior citizen once the statutory conditions for annulment were satisfied.

Consequently, the challenge raised by the derivative claimant was rejected, and the annulment of the gift deed was sustained in accordance with the protective scheme of the Act.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed on the aforesaid terms.

Cause Title: Sri Venkatiah v. The State of Karnataka & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:6283)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Narasimha Raju

Respondents: Saritha Kulkarni AGA, Advocate Nagarajaa Reddy

Click here to read/download Judgment