HC upholds sr citizen tribunal order on cancelling property gifts to ‘abusive’ son

The Bombay high court upheld an order cancelling property gift deeds executed by the wife of a late builder in the name of her younger son. The woman alleged that her son restrained her from their family bungalow, where she resided for over 30 years. The tribunal cancelled the gift deeds and granted her access to the bungalow, but refused to evict the son. The court noted that the woman executed the gift deeds based on the assurance that her son would take care of her. The son's petition challenging the tribunal's order was dismissed.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday upheld an order passed by a senior citizen tribunal in April 2022 that partially allowed the cancellation of property gift deeds which were executed by the wife of a late builder in the name of her younger son. The woman alleged that her son restrained her from their family bungalow in Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme (JVPD), where she resided for over 30 years.

HT Image

In 2018, the woman, after allegedly suffering abuse and harassment from her younger son, approached the senior citizen tribunal, a court where senior citizens get legal support for issues such as property disputes, financial exploitation, or abuse. She sought revocation of two deeds executed by her in which two family properties were gifted to her younger son. She also demanded the eviction of her son and his family from the Juhu bungalow and sought some amounts towards her monthly maintenance and medical expenses from her younger son.

On April 12, 2022, the tribunal partially allowed her complaint and cancelled the gift deeds and also granted her access to the family bungalow in JVPD, where the family has constructed a posh building, along with developing some upscale properties in Juhu, Khar and Bandra area. The tribunal, however, refused to evict the younger son from the bungalow.

The son thereafter, approached the Bombay high court, questioning the tribunal order on various grounds. He levelled allegations on his mother that she acted on instructions of his elder brother, who did not share cordial relations with him and had been residing separately.

Besides, the younger son’s lawyers argued that his mother held shares of a number of companies and had crores of rupees in her account and therefore there was no question of failure to provide necessities and maintenance to her.

During the trial at the high court, a single-judge bench of justice Sandeep Marne, however, noted that the woman had specifically pleaded in her application to the tribunal that execution of the gift deeds was done by her in view of assurance given to her by her younger son that he would take care of her during her entire life.

She further stated that the son tried to convince her that in order to have better control over all the properties and businesses, it was important that everything belongs in the name of one person. The mother, therefore, executed a Power of Attorney and later gift deeds in the name of her son.

She also claimed that she was being threatened by her younger son when her husband was on his deathbed in the Intensive Care Unit. After getting all the relevant documents executed by his mother, he started fighting with her and was disrespectful and abusive towards her.

“Existence of such a condition (in the gift deed) can also be gathered from circumstantial evidence that the mother was residing in the bungalow for 30 years and within 5 months of her husband’s demise, she thought of gifting that bungalow to her son, without knowing that a day would come when she would be out of her own house,” said justice Marne.

“A mother executing a gift of her residential bungalow in favour of her son is bound to expect that the son would let her reside in that bungalow. Therefore, existence of condition of providing the basic amenity to permit mother to reside in the bungalow is required to be assumed in the facts and circumstances of the present case,” the court said in the context of the second eventuality contemplated under the 2007 Act and dismissed the petition filed by the builder’s younger son.