In one of its recent judgement, the Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is prospective in nature and deals with transactions which are made by Senior Citizens after commencement of the Act and not prior.

Brief Facts of the Case

As per the appeal the appellant was the owner of the property in question. She transferred the property in question by way of a registered gift deed dated 22.08.2005 in favour of her daughter. Her daughter in turn sold the property in question vide registered sale deed dated 26.08.2014 in favour of respondent No.1/petitioner.

The appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner. The commissioner set at naught the registered gift deed and also registered sale deed dated 26.08.2014.

Aggrieved, the purchaser of the property (respondent No.1/petitioner) challenged the order before the High Court.

The single-Judge Bench set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner declaring the registered gift deed in favour of the respondent No.5 as null and void.

High Court Observation

The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has observed that undisputedly, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act was brought post to the gift deed signed by the appeallant. 

Defining the contents of the Act, the Court further noted, 

"The wordings incorporated under Section 23 of the Act clearly indicates that the application under Section 23 is prospective in nature. Section 23(1) of the Act deals with only those transactions which are made by senior citizens after the commencement of the Act."

 Questioning the inherent jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, the Court stated that gift deed was signed prior to the commencement of the Act and therefore, all transactions which are pre-enactment are saved and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to entertain the petition filed by the appellant.

The Court also casted aspersion on appellant's strategy to seek redressal from two authorities and said:

"It is not in dispute that the appellant has already approached the competent civil court seeking relief of declaration and has challenged the registered gift deed and also consequent sale deed executed by the respondent No.5. We are of the view that the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies on the same cause of action."

 In view of the above, the Court uphled the single-judge bench order.

Read Order Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws