In a landmark decision, the Kerala High court has said that properties transferred from senior citizens can be revoked in case they are not provided with the basic amenities.
The court said that this can be done, even if the transfer deed does not have a specific clause asking to provide for the senior citizen’s welfare.
The HC division bench was considering an appeal filed by 45-year-old Shabeen Martin of Pulachithara near Vaniyamkulam in Palakkad and his wife. The appellant had challenged a single bench’s ruling which upheld the decision of a tribunal’s order to return the properties they acquired from Shabeen’s 75-year-old maternal aunt Muriel Rejinold Beemello.
As per The Times of India report by Mahir Haneef, the property was transferred on February 8, 2012 and on May 4, 2013 Muriel filed a complaint before the maintenance tribunal set up as per provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
Muriel said in her complaint that she transferred her property to Shabeen and his wife on the understanding that they would take care of her. But she complained that they have not done so and the transfer deed would become void. Her argument was accepted by the tribunal as well as High Court single bench. The single bench ruled in favour of the senior citizen on July 11 this year.
The ToI report quotes the division bench decision as saying, "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 is 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."