In a recent judgement, Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad of the Bombay High Court ordered a son to vacate properties gifted to him by his parents. This decision came after he failed to uphold his promise to care for his elderly parents when they gifted him their flat.
The case involved a 68-year-old senior citizen Ramesh Bachaulal Soni, who has four children (one son, and three daughters), all of whom are married. Following his marriage, his son continued to live with his parents in their Lower Parel flat, which Ramesh Bachaulal Soni had purchased on March 25, 2005.
On December 11, 2020, Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife jointly purchased another residential flat in Byculla with each spouse holding a 25% share in the flat.
A few years later, a family dispute arose. To resolve the dispute, Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni executed two gift deeds on May 8, 2023, transferring 100% ownership of the Lower Parel flat and 50% of the Byculla flat to his son with the promise that he would take care of them in old age. The stamp duty and registration charges for the transactions were covered by Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife.
The son (now onwards to be referred to as Soni) signed the gift deed and promised to take care of his parents and continued to live in the Lower Parel flat. The Byculla flat at that time was still being built.
However, the family arrangement did not last long as soon relations between the parties deteriorated, compelling Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife to vacate their home, the Lower Parel flat. However, since the Byculla flat was still being built and had already been gifted to Soni, the builder didn’t allow the parents to move in. Thus Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife were left without home and this created problems for them. So they filed a court case with the senior citizen tribunal.
Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife filed the case under Sections 5 and 23, seeking cancellation of gift deeds for both the flats and consequential reliefs, including restoration of possession of the properties and return of their personal documents, bank passbooks, ATM cards, GST records and other belongings.
On April 13, 2026, the senior citizen tribunal partly allowed Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni’s case and ordered cancellation of the gift deed with respect to the Lower Parel flat and further directed Soni (the son) to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to his parents within 60 days of the order. The Byculla flat was not mentioned here.
Feeling aggrieved, Soni filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court. Advocate Bhushan Deshmukh, Soni’s lawyer said that the Lower Parel flat was in fact purchased by Soni and not his father. So when Soni’s father executed the gift deed, he merely restored the title to its true owner, i.e., Soni.
Advocate Deshmukh also said that Soni’s father is financially independent, carries on a jewellery business and owns other immovable properties. Lastly, Deskhmukh told the court that this case may have been initiated by Soni’s sisters, possibly with ulterior motives to deprive Soni of his gifted properties.
On July 7, 2026 the Bombay High Court ruled in Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni’s favour and ordered his son (Soni) to vacate. (WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 13629 OF 2026).
Why did the son lose the case?
Shrusti Shah, Associate Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva said to ET Wealth Online that the son lost mainly because of the wording of the Gift Deed itself.
Shah says that when his father and mother had gifted him the lower Parel apartment, he (son) clearly said that he would take care of them and this specific aspect was written into the gift deed also. So the Bombay High Court analysed Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act which said that if a senior citizen individual gives away (transfer) his property on the condition that he/she will be taken care of by the person receiving such a gift, then the transfer is treated as if it happened due to fraud or coercion, and can be cancelled.
Here, both parts of that test were met there was a clear condition in the deed, and the relationship broke down so badly that the parents actually had to leave their own home. The son tried arguing that his parents were financially well-off and didn’t really need the flat, and that he’d actually paid for it himself back in 2005, but the Court wasn’t persuaded by either point.
Shah says: “Financial independence doesn’t matter under this law, and his claim about paying for the flat was just an oral claim that went against what the registered document actually said.”
Bombay High Court order discussion
A summary of the judgement is as follows:
Gift deed expressly stated that Soni would take care of parents
The high court said that it becomes apparent on studying the gift deed that Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife had gifted the property on the express promise and agreement that his son and wife shall take care of them in all respect after execution of the deed. The relevant clauses in the recitals of the gift deed make this position clear.
The high court said that the gift deed for the Byculla flat also records identical obligations. Thus, the first essential condition of Section 23(1) is fully satisfied in the present case.
The foundation of the gift deed was based on Soni’s promise to maintain his parents
The Bombay High Court examined Section 23(1) and said that the record demonstrates that the mutual arrangement on the basis of which the gift deeds were executed, failed completely .
Instead of ensuring security and care to his parents, the relationship deteriorated to such an extent that Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife were compelled to vacate their own residence.
The high court said: “This is sufficient for invoking Section 23 of the Act.”
The Byculla flat, which had also been transferred to Soni, was unavailable to them as the developer declined to hand over possession after the transfer. Consequently, Mr Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and his wife were left without the benefit of either property.
The Bombay High Court thus said that these facts clearly establish Soni’s failure to fulfill the very obligation which constituted the foundation of the gift.
Other contentions of Soni also rejected by high court
The high court said that Soni’s father’s financial independence or having other assets is irrelevant as applicability of Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior citizen. Once the statutory conditions of Section 23 are satisfied, the transfer can be declared as void.
The high court said that the source of funds for purchasing the Lower Parel flat is just bald assertions and contrary to the Recitals of the Gift Deed. Such oral pleas cannot be accepted in view of the written document.
The high court also rejected Soni’s contentions about his sisters being behind his father’s case.
The high court said that such allegations that the proceedings were carried out at the behest of Soni’s sisters is disputed. Such allegations neither detract from the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal nor constitute a ground to interfere with its findings in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Soni’s belated offer to let his parents live in the Lower Parel flat was too late
The high court said that Soni has now offered to maintain his father and mother and accommodate them in their Lower Parel flat but that was too late.
The high court said: “Such belated and subsequent offer cannot revive a transfer which the statute deems to have been vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence.”
Thus on these grounds, the high court dismissed the petition and ordered Soni to follow the directions issued by the Senior Citizen Tribunal.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 