Karnataka HC Annuls Gift Deed Favoring Daughter For Neglecting Elderly Parent

Aging makes people vulnerable physically, emotionally, and possibly financially, too. In the Indian context they elderly parents depend on their children out of love and implicitly to take care of them in old age, without asking anything explicitly in writing, transfer their property to their children. However, when children neglect their parents, resorting to the legal route remains the only option for them. In a recent case, the Karnataka High Court, hearing a case on these lines, annulled the gift deed executed by a father in favour of his two daughters. Upon being neglected by the daughters for food, shelter, and medical care, the 84-year-old had to approach the Court to seek relief.

The 84-year-old petitioner (Venkataiah) executed a gift deed in 2023 for over two acres of his property in favour of his two adult daughters: Shivamma and Puttamma. The petitioner's father is illiterate and executed the deed prepared by his daughters, based on the trust that they will take care of him in old age. However, it did not turn out as expected. Allegedly, soon after the property was transferred, the daughters began neglecting their father and didn’t even provide the most basic necessities.  

The petitioner then sought relief under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, through the typical administrative channel. But his application was rejected based on the fact that he didn’t mention any “express clause” in the gift deed asking for his care.  

Petitioner’s counsel argued that the deed was “constructive fraud” and the transfer of property was vitiated. Notably, one daughter (Shivamma) died during the course of the trial, the other daughter (Puttamma) admitted to the neglect and submitted no objection to annulling the gift deed. However, petitioner’s grandson, Narasegowda (Shivamma’s son), opposed the deed revocation, assertinghis interest in it, albeit without taking responsibility to care for his grandfather.  

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed the “trusting nature of senior citizens’ and highlighted it as a social reality that the law must recognise. The law noted that parents, especially in rural areas, rarely insist on written stipulations but rather act on moral expectations and familial assurances.

The Court also noted that the deed was prepared exclusively by the daughters, and, being illiterate, the petitioner was not aware of the precise content of the deed. The Court held that asking for an express maintenance clause in the deed by the administrative authorities defeats the purpose of the 2007 Act and leaves it “nugatory”.

The High Court delivered the verdict of annulling the gift deed and declared the transfer void. Justice Govindaraj set aside the previous administrative order and held that failure to honour the implied assurance of care constitutes fraud under Section 23(1) of the Act. The Court dismissed the grandson’s claim on the property, saying that it would allow him a legal advantage without the responsibility to care for his grandfather. It directed the revenue authorities to restore the petitioner’s name on the property as the absolute owner in all the records.