On January 9, 2025, 74-year-old Mr Bairappa, who owned 1 acre 18 guntas of land in Hunasekatte village signed a release deed in his daughter’s name believing she would look after him till his death . His wife had passed away long ago and he had only his two sons and a daughter for family support.
However, his daughter did not keep her promise, Instead got the mutation done in her name, grabbed the land and abandoned her father. Upset by this betrayal, Bairappa went to court to cancel the release deed on the basis of which his daughter had grabbed the land. But when Bairappa filed the case, he got to know that she had used multiple documents and stories to strengthen her claim over his land.
Bairappa told the court that he got to know about the mutation for the first time when the notice came to his house. At that time, he found out his daughter had used a joint well made by him and his late wife to complete the mutation in her name. When his daughter and her husband presented their case in the court, Bairappa learnt that she had a sale deed in her name which supposedly was signed on July 31, 2023. According to this sale deed, she had paid Rs 7.25 lakh cash to her brothers and promised to pay Rs 10 lakh more after six months, making the total land price Rs 17.25 lakh.
Both her brothers and Bairappa denied receiving any money and signing any sale deed. So while Bairappa had thought she had grabbed the land solely on the basis of his release deed, she had based her claim on multiple documents: the sale deed, Rs 7.25 lakh cash payment to her brothers, a joint Will and the release deed.
On October 14, 2026, Bairappa won the case in the Karnataka High Court and got back his land and the release deed was cancelled by the court. Regarding the cash payment theory, the court referred the investigation to the Income Tax Department since properties above a specified value cannot be purchased in cash as per Income Tax law.
Why did Bairappa win the case?
Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner; King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: Bairappa succeeded because the Karnataka High Court found that his daughter and son-in-law could not satisfactorily establish that the property transfer was made against the payment they claimed to have made.
The daughter argued that the property had been transferred for Rs 17.25 lakh and that the release deed did not contain any specific condition requiring her to maintain her father. However, the Court found several inconsistencies in the documents submitted to support the alleged payment. One receipt even referred to a Will that was executed after the date mentioned on the receipt.
According to Sharma an inportant clarification came from the Karnataka High Court when it ruled that if a written maintenance condition in a property transfer document is not present then it does not automatically prevent a senior citizen from seeking protection under the law. The reason for this as explained by the court is when such a property is transferred the circumstances surrounding the transfer and the expectations of care must also be considered.
Sharma says that the daughter and her husband failed to give any satisfactory evidence to support their story and so the high court dismissed their petition and upheld the release deed's cancellation.
The judgment highlights that property transfers within families must not compromise the financial security and dignity of elderly parents.
What precautions should senior citizen parents take
Sharma says that senior citizens should be cautious while giving properties to their children especially if the property is one of the primary source of financial security for the senior citizen parent. Sharma also highlights that senior citizen parents must make sure to retain sufficient savings or assets to maintain their own financial independence and if need arises execute a Will instead of giving away the property during their lifetime.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj of Karnataka High Court said that the increasing number of disputes in which senior citizens allege that they have been deprived of property or left without adequate support by members of their own families calls for serious attention.
The Karnataka High Court also said that if a senior citizen so intends to give his property to his children in exchange for receiving maintenance or care from them this this arrangement must be recorded in writing. Thus the Karnataka High Court asked the Karnataka State Government to look into this issue and take appropriate steps so that senior citizens of Karnataka State are not aggrieved due to such actions by their children.
Karnataka High Court discussion
The Karnataka High Court found that the documents including the sale deed did not satisfactorily establish the alleged payment. A receipt dated August 1, 2023, referred to money received by the daughter's brothers, rather than directly by Bairappa (father). Further, the sale agreement and subsequent endorsement contained inconsistencies over when and how the amounts were paid.
Bairappa denied receiving the alleged amount. Thus the Karnataka High Court held that the daughter and son-in-law had failed to provide satisfactory supporting material to establish their claim that the transaction was backed by the stated payment. It consequently found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's order.
On October 14, 2026, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and so Bairappa won. The court also forwarded this case to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka.
