AMAR NATH DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and Competent Authority under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The order impugned is dtd. 30/11/2022 and was passed in an application filed by the private respondent no. 6 whereby the private respondent no. 6 sought for revocation of a gift deed. The private respondent executed the Deed of Gift dtd. 3/7/2019 consisting of his residential building in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner was the opposite party no. 1 before the Tribunal.

(2.) By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the petitioner to return the original copy of the Gift deed to the Tribunal within 7 days. The Tribunal declared the Deed of Gift to be void and accepted the arguments for revocation of the Deed as urged by the private respondent no. 6. The Deed was revoked under Sec. 23 of the Act.

(3.) The relevant facts are briefly stated. The private respondent no. 6 is an octogenarian, whose wife died intestate on 4/9/2013. The private respondent no. 6 inherited the two-storey building (the property in question) after the death of his wife. The private respondent does not have any children. The petitioner and the private respondent no. 7, claiming to be a married couple were inducted as tenants in the said building in 2014. The private respondent no. 6, being alone and an aged widower became dependent on the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and treated the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 as his children. The petitioner, the private respondent no. 7 and the private respondent no. 6 (the donor) became close to one another. The private respondent no. 6 later came to know that the petitioner was already married before and had a married daughter and a son. The Deed of Gift executed by the private respondent no. 6 in favour of the petitioner was dtd. 3/7/2019. A declaration was issued within a week thereafter on 10/7/2019 between the private respondent no. 6 and the petitioner incorporating a condition that the petitioner would look after the daily needs including medical needs of the private respondent no. 6. However, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 refused to look after the private respondent no. 6 and treated him with cruelty. The private respondent no. 6 accordingly approached the Tribunal for revoking the Deed of Gift. The impugned order was passed in the said proceedings and is a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.