MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO TITLE PAGE NO

01 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 03

02 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 06

03 STATEMENT OF FACTS 07

04 ISSUES 09

05 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

06 ARGUMENT ADVANCED 11

07 PRAYER 16

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 1

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULLFORM

& And

Add. Additional

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Ed. Edition

Exh. Exhibit

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

NOC Notes on Cases

Ors. Others

r/w Read with

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 2

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

1 .BOOKS
 THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT-
a) MULLA, THE COMMENTARY ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
b) R.K.SINHA, THE TEXTBOOK ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

a) D.D.BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,
WADHWA, INDIA, 2007 , 8TH EDITION ,VOLUME I AND II.
b) M.P.JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (LEXIS NEXIS EIGHT
EDITION, 2018)
c) H.M. SEERVAL, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATIONS , INDIA,2004,4TH EDITION, VOLUME I,II AND III.

2. LINKS REFERRED

I. WWW.LEXISNEXISACADEMIC.COM
II. WWW.WESTLAWINDIA.COM
III. WWW.HEINONLINE.ORG
IV. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
V. WWW.SCCONLINE.COM
VI. WWW.LIVELAW.COM
VII. WWW.BAR&BENCH.COM
VIII. WWW.GOOGLE.COM
IX. WWW.VAKILNO1.COM
X. WWW.LEGALSRVICEINDIA.COM
XI. WWW.THEHINDU.COM
XII. WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 3

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

3. CASES
 Mukhraj devi v. Manoj Kumar Singh, air 2002
 Sridhar v. Revanna,2000

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 4

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honourable Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Respondent approached before the Supreme Court through Special Leave
petition. i.e.,

Article 136 provides special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence
or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 5

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Sri Gautam Ganguly, aged 62, is a retired government employee
drawing about Rs.10,000/- per month as pension. His first wife
died in 2010. In January 2011, when Mr. Gautam expressed his
wish to Mr. Arjun Ganguly (Son) and Mrs. Saara (daughter-in-law)
that he is going to have live in relationship with Ms. Neelima
(aged 45) and that his son will take care of his father in this age.

 Both son and daughter-in-law were rudely shocked to listen to the

father’s wish. But later they relented and requested the father
that half share in the property (House, the value of which was
estimated to be Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rupees Ten lakhs) in Hooghly
Estates should be transferred to them. To maintain peace in the
family, Gautam Ganguly transferred half share in the property to
his son in May, 2011 through a Registered Gift Deed.

 However, thereafter, the son and daughter-in-law started

insulting his live in partner. Unbearable to that ill-treatment
towards Ms. Neelima by both his son and daughter in law for
more than one year, Gautam and Neelima shifted their residence
to other premises. Subsequently in 2013, Mr. Gautam Ganguly
lodged a complaint to the Sub-Collector, City of Kolkata seeking an
order to revoke the Gift Deed executed in favour of his son under
Sec. 23 of
MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 6
 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007.

 In the Tribunal, Sub-Collector passed an order that ‘elderly

parents can take back property gifted to a son, if he ill-treats
them’. This order permits the Complainant-Father to withdraw
the gift deed from his son, since his son is not providing basic
needs of both parents. In the Appellate Tribunal, the Dist.
Collector reversed the order of the Tribunal on ‘accepting the
argument of son that an accepted gift through registered deed
cannot be revoked’ under the provisions of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908.

 The father got relief from Calcutta High Court when the High
Court restored the order of the Tribunal. As a last resort, the son
preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 7

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

ISSUES RAISED
The following issues have arisen for determination before the Hon’ble Court in
the instant matter:

A. WHETHER SECTION 23 OF MAINTENANCE OF WELFARE OF

PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT,2007 IS MAINTAINABLE
OR NOT ?

B. WHETHER THE GIFT DEED IS REVOCABLE OR NOT?

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 8

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I=WHETHER THE GIFT DEED IS REVOCABLE OR NOT?

136 of the constitution of India since a matter of gross injustice to the appellant is
involved by the judgement given by the Hon’ble High Court.

Here, in this case, there is a conflict between the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 & Maintainance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007.Also, there is grave injustice against the petitioner, that after
gifting an unconditional property, the respondent is revoking it. A purely
administrative or executive order or ruling cannot be a matter of appeal; the
judgment, decree or order against which an appeal is made must possess some
judicial character.Here HC is the judicial character. So, the petition is maintainable.
So, SLP provides the aggrieved party special permission to be heard in the Supreme
Court in an appeal against any judgment or order of any Court or tribunal in India.

parents and senior citizens act, 2007 would only come into play in cases
where a property has been transferred by a senior citizen to a person
and there was a stipulation in the deed of transfer that the transferee
would maintain the transferor. Here, the gift deed in question had no
MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 9
 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

stipulation as to maintainance of Gautam Ganguly by his son. Further,

Mr. Ajay had not neglected his father. Therefore, the invocation of
section 23 in the present case is not warranted.

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 10

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

ARGUMENT ADVANCED
A. WHETHER SECTION 23 OF MAINTAINANCE OF WELFARE OF
PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 IS MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT ?

The appellant humbly submits that section 23 maintenance of welfare

of parents and welfare and senior citizens act, 2007 is clearly not
maintainable because as it should contain a clause imposing an
obligation on the settlee or transferee to maintain the settlor or
transferor.

And section 23 of MWPSCA, 2007 states : Transfer of property to be

void in certain circumstances. —
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of
this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his
property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall
provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such
amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall
be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under
undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be
declared void by the Tribunal.
The respondent had no such condition which had clearly mentioned that the
appellant had to care of live -in -partner either in terms of express or implied
terms of deed so that deed will be revoked if the appellant fails to do such. It was
no were mentioned to do such and according the main purpose of this act is that
children would be taking care of their old parents who had transfer any property

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 11

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

and are unable to maintain themselves now however the present facts
of the case suggests that the respondent had transfer property worth
of Rs 100000 in order to maintain peace and out of his natural love and
affection.
The act clearly mentions the person should be a parent who should be maintain
but according to section 2 {d} "parent" means father or mother whether
biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or
not the father or the mother is a senior citizen. But the act doesn’t recognize a
living partner to be a parent so the maintenance or peaceful living of living
partner of respondent doesn’t bring as a responsibility of the appellant.

In addition to this fact the brings into the notice of the honourable court that the
parent must be a senior citizen who had to be maintained but under section 2 {h}
"senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the
age of sixty years or above. However, the live -in -partner of the respondent was
45 years in age and doesn’t fall in this category. The Honourable Supreme court
had defined the meaning of maintenance in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha2
observed the following criteria

• 2 parties status

• The respondent income and property

• The claimant liabilities and financial obligations

• The parties age and job status

• The parties living arrangement

And according to the present facts of the case it can be seen thar respondent had no financial
burden and better financial status than the appellant. In addition to this respondent had a
monthly pension of Rs 10000 and had half share of property worth of Rs 500000 with him also.
Though the respondent was about 62 years of age but had enough means of pension and
property. The appellant further submits that of having well financial backup the respondent
choose to live separate with her live -in partner and never was compelled by the appellant to
do such.

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 12

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

B. WHETHER THE GIFT DEED IS REVOCABLE OR NOT?

It appellant humbly submits that that the gift deed executed in favour of
appellant is not revocable, the appellant brings to the notice of the
honorable Supreme Court that none of the grounds produced on the behalf
of the counsel is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to make the
revocation of the gift executed by the respondent.

. According to section 122 of the transfer of property of act, 1882

Gift” is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable
property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one
person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and
accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance when to be
made. —Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the
donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies
before acceptance, the gift is void.
In the present facts of the case, it was transfer of immovable property
worth of Rs 100000 which was executed in favour of the appellant by the
respondent and was voluntarily made the respondent through a
registered gift deed. It was made by the donor by the respondent {Mr
Gautam Ganguly} to the donee {Arjun Ganguly} and the acceptance of gift
of conflicted immovable property was made during lifetime of the donor
{the respondent} and the same was accepted by the done.

Further the respondent submits that the gift to be revoked should fulfil the
essentials of section 126 of transfer of property act, 1882 The donor and
done may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does
not depend on the will of the donor a it shall be suspended or revoked; but
a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part at the
mere well of the donor is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift
MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 13
 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in

which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded Save as aforesaid, a gift
cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to
affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice. Here in the
above facts of the case suggests that there was no specified condition
which was expressly or impliedly been mentioned by the respondent
{donor} before the execution of the registered gift deed and to which
appellant had agreed hence the respondent {donor} doesn’t had the power
to make the revocation of gift of immovable property now .In the case of
Sridhar v.N.Revanna4 the question arose whether a gift deed can be
revoked by virtue of Section 126 if there was no condition whether no
express or implied was made by the donor was agreed the donor . Such
property is alienated had been raised in the Supreme Court once again for
which the court had to adjudicate the matter.

In this case one Shri Muniswamappa, great grandfather of the plaintiffs

and grandfather of defendant No.1, was the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property who executed gift deeds in favour of the defendants
with the same condition that the property should not be alienated and if
such property was to be alienated, then the gift deed stands invalid. The
defendants on the other hand had sold the property which they had
received as a gift to which the plaintiffs’ alleged that such a transfer was
invalid as the gift deed specifically stated that the mentioned property is
not to be alienated and the plaintiffs demanded the property to be 4 Civil
appeal no.1209 of 2020 12 transferred to them back. The honourable
Supreme Court remarked as there was no express or implied condition to
which donor and donee had agreed before the execution of the registered
instrument and hence the gift deed cannot be revoked. Also the essential of
how valid gift is been made is
• The transfer of ownership
• Existence of property
• The transfer must be without consideration and done voluntarily.
• Donor must be a competent person
MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 14
 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

• The transferee/ donee must accept the gift-

• Delivery of possession-
• The respondent humbly submits that all these essentials are duly fulfilled
and hence it was a valid transfer of gift

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 15

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY,2023

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues
raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed and implored before the Hon’ble supreme court, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudged and declared that;

The decision would be made to relieve the appellant from any

kind of liability. Also pass any order that the honourable court may
deem fit in the favour of appellant to meet the ends of equity, justice
and good conscience.

Respectfully Submitted

Counsel for the appellant

Date-09.05.2023

MEM0RANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 16