Nos.4 and 5 were bound to maintain the respondent No.3, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would be the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.60/9 of Shettigere village and therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have exercised the jurisdiction under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to cancel the gift deed and consequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara , supra, has rightly held that when a senior citizen parts with his/her property, by executing a gift or release deed, the existence of a condition that the Donee shall maintain must be established before the Tribunal. Except the self-serving statement of the respondent No.3 that there was a condition in the gift deed, there was nothing to justify the claim of the respondent No.3. Therefore, unless there is a provision in the gift deed requiring the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to maintain the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 would not get the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and cancel the registered instrument of gift and the
