74 year-old man’s attempt to revoke gift deed to daughter dismissed
Nagpur, July 24, 2025 The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a 74-year-old businessman’s plea to reclaim property gifted to his daughter. The court ruled that the Senior Citizens Act offers no legal basis to reverse the transfer. The judgment upheld earlier decisions by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority. It confirmed that the gift deed remains valid despite ongoing family disputes.
The court stated that the gift deed, signed in 2016 for a commercial shop in Sitabuldi, Nagpur, had no clause requiring the daughter to support her father. It lacked any express condition mandating her to provide care or amenities. Justice R.M. Joshi noted that such conditions are crucial to revoke a gift under the Senior Citizens Act. Without them, the father’s claim had no legal standing.
The businessman claimed he should get the property back because family ties had broken down. He contended that his daughter failed to maintain him or support him during his old age. However, the court ruled that emotional fallout could not justify reclaiming the shop. The original gift deed had not imposed any obligations on the daughter.
“The tribunal was justified in rejecting the application,” Justice Joshi observed. He emphasized that courts can enforce support obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act only when the deed clearly mentions such conditions. In this case, there were none. The court noted that the daughter contested her father’s claim, asserting the shop was an unconditional gift. The High Court concurred with this position and held that the petitioner’s case lacked merit. It clarified that if a parent gifts property voluntarily without attaching any condition for future care, the question of reclaiming the asset under the Act does not arise.
The ruling sends a clear message about the importance of clear legal conditions in property transfers among family members. It also upholds the view that emotional disputes or family breakdowns, while unfortunate, cannot override binding legal documents unless the statutory requirements are met.
Legal experts say the case will serve as a precedent for similar disputes under the Senior Citizens Act, where courts may favor documented intent over emotional arguments. The decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach when interpreting familial property transfers in the absence of legal obligations.
Source
