BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court asked the state government to take appropriate measures to create awareness among senior citizens about the legal consequences of transferring or relinquishing property during their lifetime, where their future financial security and care may depend upon the support of family members.
“Such awareness may address the importance of understanding the nature and effect of documents before execution, the desirability of recording any intended obligation to provide maintenance or care, the risks of transferring the principal source of livelihood or security, and the remedies available under law if the transfer results in deprivation of maintenance or support,” Justice Suraj Govindraj observed.
The court made these observations while dismissing the petition filed in 2025 by a woman and her husband from Davanagere district, challenging the order dated September 8, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cancelling the ‘registered release deed’ dated January 9, 2025, for about 1 acre 30 guntas land, executed by the woman’s 76-year-old father in her favour.
The official was acting under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as the petitioner had failed to take care of and maintain her father.
The court said that in view of concerns arising in cases of this nature, the state government may consider whether the existing safeguards under the Act are being effectively implemented and whether further measures, consistent with the Act and other applicable laws, are necessary to strengthen awareness and protection. Such consideration would fall within the state government’s statutory and policy-making functions, the court added.
“The government may also examine whether administrative guidelines, consistent with the Registration Act, 1908, and the applicable rules, would assist registering authorities in dealing with documents executed by senior citizens, particularly where substantial property is transferred or relinquished in favour of close relatives,” the court said.
The daughter contended that her father entered into an agreement of sale deed dated July 31, 2023, in her favour in respect of the land in question for a total consideration of Rs 17.25 lakh. Rs 7.25 lakh was paid at the time of its execution, and the balance of Rs 10 lakh was agreed to be paid within six months. The father decided not to execute the sale deed and instead executed a release deed in 2025 in her favour, relinquishing all his rights in the property. Her two brothers had received an amount of Rs 17.25 lakh from her.
Denying it, the father claimed that his daughter took advantage of his age and obtained his signatures on documents prepared by them to get the land, and failed to take care of him. Noting that the petitioners have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that they had the financial means to make the alleged payments totalling Rs 17.25 lakh and father denying receiving money, the court dismissed the petition.
