Introduction:

In the case of Vivek Jain v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, the Karnataka High Court addressed the issue of whether a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favor of his son can be annulled by the Assistant Commissioner of the Senior Citizen Tribunal if the gift deed does not include a condition for maintaining the donor. Justice M. Nagaprasanna presided over the case, allowing the petition filed by Vivek Jain, who purchased the property from C.S. Harsha, the son of Srinivas, who was the original donor.

Arguments:

Vivek Jain, the petitioner, argued that the gift deed executed by Srinivas in favor of his son did not contain any condition that required the son to maintain Srinivas. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to annul the gift deed based on such a condition. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the authority to set aside the sale deed executed in his favor. Jain highlighted that the sale of the property followed all legal protocols and that he had acquired it in good faith.

The counsel for Srinivas argued that after the death of Srinivas’ wife, the property should have devolved back to all family members rather than solely to Srinivas. They claimed that since the donee (Srinivas’ wife) was no longer alive, the gift deed to the son was invalid. The counsel maintained that all actions taken by Srinivas after his wife’s death, including the gift deed to the son and the subsequent sale, were null and void in the eyes of the law.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court considered the circumstances under which the gift deed was executed. Srinivas initially gifted the property to his wife in 2000, and after her death in 2015, he executed a new gift deed to his son in 2019. The son’s name was entered in all revenue records, and the property was sold to Vivek Jain, who cleared all outstanding dues and encumbrances on the property. The court took into account that the proceeds from the sale were partially distributed to Srinivas, including a deposit of Rs 15 lakhs in his name and a monthly remittance of Rs 10,000.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devu (2022), the Karnataka High Court found that the Assistant Commissioner could annul a gift deed only if it contained a condition of maintaining the donor, as outlined in the Ramti Devu case. Since the gift deed in question did not have such a condition, the court ruled that the Assistant Commissioner overstepped his jurisdiction in annulling both the gift deed and the sale deed.

The court further rejected the argument that the petitioner had no right to challenge the Assistant Commissioner’s order. It noted that the petitioner was a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and had the right to protect his legally purchased property. The court observed that sending the petitioner to a civil court would result in prolonged litigation and uncertainty, given that the Assistant Commissioner’s order would remain a significant impediment.

However, the High Court declined to address the issue of whether the property would devolve back to Srinivas after the death of his wife, leaving this question open for determination by a competent civil court.

Additionally, recognizing the increased cost of living, the court directed Srinivas’ son to pay an additional Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to his father, ensuring adequate support.