A senior citizen sought declaration that a settlement deed in favour of his son was void under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 after teak trees were removed from the gifted property. The court found no provision for basic amenities in the deed and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 23529 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
P.D JAMES, AGED 90 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVASSIYA, PAMBLANI HOUSE, 380/4, 4TH BLOCK, BYPASS ROAD, GONIKKUPPA, COORG, KARNATAKA, PIN – 571213.
BY ADVS. NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP ABHIRAM T.K.
RESPONDENTS:
3 JOLLY P.J, S/O JAMES, BEHIND C.I.T COLLEGE, PONNAMPETTA, HALLIGATT P.O, COORG KARNATAKA, PIN – 571216.
BY ADVS. SRI.CIBI THOMAS SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 2 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
W.P.(C) No.23529 of 2023
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, is before this
Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Ext.P5 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 3 :
property in June, 2022, he found that all the teak trees valued more than ₹10 lakhs were cut, removed and sold by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was thus deprived of his right to receive maintenance out of the estate that was gifted to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner therefore filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking to initiate action under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In his Ext.P2 application, the petitioner sought maintenance and to declare Ext.P1 gift deed as void in terms of Section 23.
respondent and other male children of the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹2,000/- per month to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the issue of validity of Ext.P1 gift deed. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the 3rd respondent and other children have been paying maintenance as ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal and it
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 4 :
was not necessary to interfere with Ext.P3 order. The appeal was consequently dismissed as per Ext.P5 order.
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 5 :
the property.
was executed not on the basis of any understanding as contended by the petitioner. There is no such condition in Ext.P1. The only condition in Ext.P1 is that the petitioner is entitled to take income from the property. The petitioner has been taking income from the property. The writ petition is therefore without any merit.
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 6 :
month. The Tribunal in effect rejected the prayer of the petitioner relating to Ext.P1 settlement deed. The Appellate Tribunal, as per Ext.P5, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner finding that the children of the petitioner are paying maintenance as ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal.
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 7 :
favour of the petitioner. Ext.P1 does not make any provision for basic amenities and basic physical needs to the petitioner expressly or by way of necessary implication. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the prayer to unsettle Ext.P1 document and awarded maintenance to the petitioner.
I do not find any illegality in Ext.P3 or Ext.P5 orders. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/14.05.2024
W.P.(C) No.23529/2023
: 8 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23529/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NUMBERED 1892/2015 DATED 04.07.2015. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.07.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL- THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2022 PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL-THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 08.11.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
ESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.03.2020 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND VARGHESE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Exts.P3 and P5 tribunal orders declining to declare the gift/settlement deed void under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act called for interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhashini v. District CollectorFollowed¶10
2020 (5) KLT 533
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.D James
District Collector, Kannur
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kannur
Jolly P.J
N. Nagaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
