Skip to main content

Conflicting High Court Rulings: The Importance of Clear Gift Deed Clauses

 

The very recent judgements from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts have left me thinking about the best way to handle family disputes over gift deeds. Both courts dealt with cases where parents transferred property through a gift deed to their children, hoping for care and support in return. However, the conclusions reached by the two courts were surprisingly different!

The Karnataka High Court’s stand: Implied Obligations Matter
Let’s start with the Karnataka High Court’s decision on July 29, 2024. In the case of Smt. Shoba v. Dr. Anil P. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:5437), a mother named Shobha transferred her property to her son, Dr. Anil P Kumar. She believed that he would take care of her in her old age. The gift deed didn’t specifically say he had to do so, but it was understood between them.
However, things didn’t go as planned. Shobha felt that her son wasn’t keeping his promise. So, she went to court. Justice Suraj Govindaraj decided that even though the gift deed didn’t have a clause saying Dr. Anil had to look after his mother, the promise was still there. The court said that Shobha’s expectations were reasonable and voided the gift deed, ordering Dr. Anil to return the property.

The Bombay High Court’s Stand: Comply with the Law Explicitly
Now let’s look at the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu & Anr. v. Sanjeevani Naresh Patil & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:36133) a month later on August 29, 2024. Here, a mother-in-law Sanjeevani from Pune gifted her property to her son-in-law Nandkishor and daughter Urga. Later, she claimed that the gift was obtained through fraud and that her children weren’t caring for her. A Tribunal cancelled the gift deed, but the children challenged this decision in court.
The Bombay High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, saying that the Tribunal didn’t have the right to cancel the gift deed based on allegations of fraud. The court suggested that such issues should be taken to a civil court instead. Unlike the Karnataka High Court, this decision emphasized the importance of sticking to proper legal procedures.
In both the cases including, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Ashwin Bharat Khater and ors. Versus Urvashi Bharat Khater and ors. (MANU/MH/3569/2023), referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and anr. in Civil Appeal No.174/2021 disposed of on 06-12-2022. The Bench noted that the conditions regarding care for senior citizens do not have to be clearly stated in the gift deed; they can be proven in front of the Tribunal. This highlights that while it’s important to be clear, not having specific clauses doesn’t mean such expectations can’t be established later.

Supreme Court Clarification: Essential Conditions for Validity
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) provided important insights that are very relevant to these discussions. The Court looked at the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, specifically Section 23. It highlighted two important conditions for a gift deed to be cancelled under this section:
1. The transfer must include a condition that the person receiving the gift will provide basic needs and care to the person giving the gift.
2. The person receiving the gift must refuse or fail to provide that care.
The Court's focus on clearly stating these conditions reinforced my belief that trust and understanding within families are not enough in legal matters. These conditions must be proven in front of the Tribunal, showing that clarity in gift deeds is crucial.

What’s the Lesson Here?
These rulings show us just how tricky these situations can be. If you’re planning to gift property to your children, hoping they’ll take care of you in return, make sure to include that expectation clearly in the gift deed. It might feel awkward to include such a clause, but it can save a lot of trouble and legal disputes in the future.
Family relationships and expectations don’t always fit neatly into legal documents. That’s why it’s crucial to spell things out clearly. A simple clause about maintaining and caring for the donor could make all the difference.
In conclusion, while the courts are there to help resolve disputes, it’s always better to have everything clearly written down. Better safe than sorry, right?

Citations.:
1) Smt. Shoba v. Dr. Anil P. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:5437)
2) Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu & Anr. v. Sanjeevani Naresh Patil & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:36133)
3) Ashwin Bharat Khater and ors. Versus Urvashi Bharat Khater and ors. (MANU/MH/3569/2023)
4) Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and anr. Civil Appeal No.174/2021 (SC)

[Stay tuned for more such updates…]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more