The High Court of Bombay quashed the order of the Maintenance Tribunal that had canceled a gift deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had determined that the gift deed executed by Respondent No. 1 (a senior citizen) in favor of her daughter and son-in-law (petitioners) was obtained through fraud and canceled it under Section 23 of the Act. The High Court held that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of documents, such as a gift deed, on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. Such matters should be decided by a competent civil court. However, the Court affirmed that the provisions of the Act allow for challenging transfers made with the condition of providing maintenance, which was not proven in this case.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu (Son-in-law) and Urga Nandkishor Sahu (Daughter)
   • Respondent No. 1: Sanjeevani Naresh Patil (Senior Citizen, Mother of Petitioner No. 2)
   • Respondent No. 2: Ella Shridhar Sawant (Sister of Petitioner No. 2)
   • Respondent No. 3: State of Maharashtra

2. Case Background:

   • The case involves a dispute over a gift deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in 2016, transferring her property to Petitioner No. 1.
   • Respondent No. 1 alleged that the gift deed was obtained by fraud and under coercion, and filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

3. Tribunal's Decision:

   • The Tribunal, relying on Section 23 of the Act, canceled the gift deed, stating the petitioners failed to provide maintenance to Respondent No. 1.

4. Appellate Authority Decision:

   • The appellate authority upheld the Tribunal's order canceling the gift deed.

5. Petitioners' Argument:

   • The petitioners argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the gift deed on grounds of fraud or coercion. They cited the Supreme Court decision in Suresh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi to support their contention that issues related to fraud should be decided by a civil court.

6. Respondents' Argument:

   • Respondent No. 1 argued that the Tribunal had the authority under the Act to cancel the gift deed as the petitioners had failed to provide for her maintenance and basic needs.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007:
  • Section 23: Empowers the Tribunal to declare void a transfer of property made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities if the transferee fails to do so.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court held that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of documents such as a gift deed on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. These matters require a full-fledged trial in a competent civil court. The Tribunal's authority under Section 23 is limited to cases where a transfer is made with a clear condition of providing maintenance, and this condition is not met. Since the necessary grounds for fraud were not adequately established, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the gift deed was quashed.

Subject: Civil Law, Property Law, Senior Citizens' Rights, Senior Citizens Act, Gift Deed, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Property Transfer, Fraud, Maintenance Rights, Civil Procedure