Bengaluru: With cases under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, on the rise, the high court has suggested that the state govt consider measures to create awareness among senior citizens about the legal consequences of transferring or relinquishing property during their lifetime.In an order passed on Oct 14, Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that such awareness should highlight the importance of understanding the nature and legal impact of documents before signing them, recording any obligation to provide maintenance or care, and the risks of transferring property that constitutes their principal source of livelihood or financial security. Senior citizens should also be informed about the legal remedies available if such transfers leave them without maintenance or support, he said.The observations came while the court examined a dispute involving a release deed executed by G Bairappa, 75, in favour of his daughter Girija and son-in-law Y Chandru.Bairappa had approached the assistant commissioner, Bhadravathi, alleging neglect by the couple in connection with 1 acre 30 guntas of land at Hunasekatte village in Bhadravathi taluk. Allowing his application, the assistant commissioner had set aside the release deed.Challenging the order, Girija and Chandru contended that the transaction was essentially a sale. They claimed to have paid Rs 7.3 lakh under an agreement of sale dated July 31, 2023, with the balance payable within six months. According to them, after the balance amount was paid, Bairappa executed a release deed in their favour, and the money was distributed among his sons.They further argued that the release deed contained no condition requiring them to maintain or care for Bairappa in return for the property. However, Bairappa disputed the authenticity of the documents relied upon to establish payment and nature of the transaction.Justice Govindaraj said the court was not convinced by the documents produced by the petitioners. Material discrepancies and the absence of satisfactory supporting evidence regarding the alleged payment were sufficient grounds to reject their contention.The judge directed that the matter be referred to the chief commissioner of income tax, Karnataka, for further action.
