The Bombay High Court has ordered a son to vacate two properties that were gifted by his parents, marking a significant legal precedent in conditional property transfers. According to reports from Mint, Ramesh Bachaulal Soni, 68, gifted two flats in 2023 - a Lower Parel flat and part of a Byculla flat - to his son with explicit conditions attached. The court upheld that the gift deed conditions were unmet, justifying the property revocation. The son had originally purchased the Lower Parel flat himself, but the court rejected his argument that his father merely restored true ownership.
The court's decision was based on Section 23 of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects senior citizens who transfer property conditionally. As reported by Mint, both gift deeds explicitly recorded the son's promise to care for his parents in old age, satisfying the first requirement under Section 23. The court found that the relationship broke down so severely that the parents were forced to leave their own home, with the Byculla flat remaining unavailable due to incomplete construction. This breach of promise justified the cancellation of the property transfer. According to ET Wealth Online, Shrusti Shah, Associate Partner at KSK, highlighted that the Bombay High Court examined Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides protection to senior citizens who transfer property subject to conditions that the transferee will provide for their basic physical needs.
The court dismissed Soni's argument that his father was financially independent, running a successful jewellery business. According to Mint, the court clarified that financial status doesn't affect Section 23's applicability once statutory conditions are met. Soni's claim that he originally funded the flat also failed, as it was merely an oral assertion unsupported by documentation and directly contradicted the registered gift deed's written terms. As noted by ET Wealth Online, Shrusti Shah emphasized that financial independence doesn't matter under this law, and his claim about paying for the flat was just an oral claim that went against what the registered document actually said. She underlined the importance of terms and conditions expressly recorded in registered property documents, particularly where transfers by senior citizens are linked to obligations of care and maintenance.
The parents initially approached the senior citizen tribunal for resolution, which ordered the cancellation of the gift deed for the Lower Parel flat and directed the son to vacate within 60 days. As reported by Mint, the son then appealed this decision before the Bombay High Court, where his lawyer argued various defenses including his original ownership claim. The court rejected all arguments as unconvincing, with Advocate Shrusti Shah explaining the decisive role of the gift deed's specific wording. The tribunal's decision was particularly significant as it specifically incorporated the son's obligation to take care of his parents into the registered Gift Deed, making the terms central to the case outcome.
The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed Soni's petition, ruling that his late compromise offer to accommodate his parents came too late. According to Mint, such belated offers cannot undo transfers already deemed fraudulent. The court emphasized that conditional gift deeds involving immovable property must satisfy registration and stamping requirements, with conditions being lawful, reasonable and possible to fulfill. The ruling establishes important precedent for conditional property transfers and their revocation rights under Indian property law, particularly highlighting the critical importance of registered gift deeds and their terms in cases involving senior citizen transfers.
