Two High Courts, Two Answers on Section 23: What It Means for Bengaluru Buyers

Two fathers, two deeds, two High Courts, and two different answers within a month. In Chennai, an octogenarian who had settled property on his son out of love and affection asked to have the settlement cancelled because, he said, his son did not care for him. On September 21, 2026, the Madras High Court refused, because the deed contained no condition requiring the son to maintain him. At the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru, a dispute over a release deed signed by a father in favour of his daughter raised a similar question. On October 14, 2026, the Karnataka High Court held that the absence of such a condition in the deed did not, by itself, stop the authority from hearing him.

For a Bengaluru buyer, the difference is not academic. If you are buying a property that came to the seller from a parent by gift, settlement or release, the Karnataka ruling suggests the parent's claim under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not ruled out merely because the deed is silent on care.

The short answer. In Drakshayini v. Assistant Commissioner, 2026:KHC:58865, Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court held that an express condition in a release deed requiring the releasee to maintain the releasor is not, by itself, a prerequisite for invoking Section 23, where the application specifically alleges the transfer was made on an understanding of care. In Dr. A. Panner v. District Collector, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar of the Madras High Court, following a Full Bench and a coordinate bench of that court, held that without a specific condition in the transfer document, Section 23(1) cannot be invoked. The trade-off for Bengaluru buyers: Karnataka's approach gives elderly transferors more room, which means a silent deed is less of a safe harbour for anyone who later buys from the transferee.

What did the Karnataka High Court decide on October 14?

According to the Karnataka High Court's judgment in WP No. 34895 of 2025, the father had applied under Section 23 concerning a registered release deed dated January 9, 2025, and the Assistant Commissioner allowed his application by an order of September 8, 2025, later corrected on October 6, 2025. The daughter and others challenged that order.

The Court framed the first question as whether an express condition was a prerequisite. It held that the contention that the release deed was executed on the understanding that the daughter would care for the father in his old age could not be rejected merely because the deed did not expressly impose such an obligation. It said the nature of the transaction, the age and circumstances of the senior citizen, the position of the property and the specific averments in the application are all relevant, and that the absence of an express stipulation does not, by itself, disprove the alleged understanding.

The Court drew a distinction between an express condition in the document and an understanding or agreement forming the basis of the transfer. Section 23, it said, cannot be applied or excluded solely by looking at whether the document contains a specific maintenance clause. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the Madras High Court decide on September 21?

The Madras High Court's order in WP No. 46726 of 2025 records that the father, an octogenarian, executed a settlement deed and family arrangement in favour of his son out of love and affection, on the understanding, he said, that his son would provide basic amenities and meet his physical needs. The tribunal and the appellate authority rejected his Section 23 application. His counsel argued that the obligation was implicit in the transaction.

The Court disagreed. It noted that Madras High Court decisions had gone both ways, with some Division Bench rulings accepting implied conditions. It relied on a coordinate bench decision in Karuppan, which held that Section 23(1) requires a specific condition that cannot be presumed or implied and that love and affection may be the motive for a gift but is not the statutory condition, and on a Full Bench decision in Sasikala from 2022 holding that without a specific condition the power under Section 23 cannot be invoked. Since the settlement deed undisputedly had no such condition, the Court found no illegality in the orders. It also noted findings that the father was being maintained by his daughter, that the son had expressed readiness to maintain him, and that he had sought only cancellation, not maintenance.

Why do the two courts differ?

Both rulings work with the same words of Section 23(1), which applies where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs. The Madras court reads that as requiring the condition to appear in the transfer. The Karnataka court, relying on its own precedent cited as Sri Venkataiah, reads it as allowing the condition to be proved from the understanding and circumstances behind the transfer, where specifically pleaded.

Each court is bound by its own precedents, and neither ruling binds the other. For a property in Bengaluru, the Karnataka High Court's approach is the one that local authorities and courts in the state will look to, unless and until a larger bench or the Supreme Court says otherwise.

The Madras order also shows how unsettled the question has been within a single court. It records that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Muniyammal, decided on April 28, 2025 and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, held that an implied condition is sufficient. The coordinate bench in Karuppan, decided on June 19, 2025, examined the Supreme Court's decisions in S. Vanitha, Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit and concluded they do not support the implied condition view, noting that in Urmila Dixit both the gift deed and an accompanying promissory note expressly recorded the donee's obligation to maintain the donor. The September 21 order followed Karuppan and the 2022 Full Bench ruling in Sasikala. If a single High Court has wrestled with the point this much, buyers should expect the issue to remain contested until the Supreme Court addresses it squarely.

What does this mean for a Bengaluru buyer?

It widens the set of transactions you should treat with care. PropNewz first reported the Karnataka ruling in our October 30 article. Read alongside the Madras order, the message is that in Karnataka you cannot rely on the absence of a maintenance clause to conclude that a parent's transfer to a child is beyond challenge under Section 23.

Today PropNewz also covered an Allahabad High Court ruling on Section 23 and forged gift deeds, which quotes Section 23(2) on maintenance claims against transferees for value without notice. Together, the three rulings show how much depends on the facts and on which court is deciding.

How should a buyer approach a property transferred by a senior citizen?

Look beyond the deed itself. Under the Karnataka approach, what matters is the understanding behind the transfer and the circumstances, so the questions a buyer asks should reach those facts. Is the transferor alive? Do they live with or apart from the transferee? Have they ever complained to an authority? Would they confirm in writing that they support the sale?

1. Identify every gift, settlement or release from a senior citizen in the chain.
2. Read each deed for any condition about care or maintenance.
3. Do not treat a silent deed as proof that no condition existed.
4. Ask whether the transferor has filed any Section 23 application.
5. Check for orders of the Assistant Commissioner or appellate authority.
6. Seek the transferor's written support for the sale where possible.
7. Take legal advice on Karnataka precedent before paying.

Did anything else in the Karnataka judgment matter?

Yes, for anyone who deals in cash. The Karnataka judgment records disputes over an agreement of sale dated July 31, 2023 and receipts relied on by the petitioners. In its final order, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka, citing the Supreme Court's direction in RBANMS Educational Institution that courts should refer matters in which claims of substantial cash payments are made to the Income Tax Department. That is a reminder that cash payments in property deals can draw scrutiny well beyond the dispute in which they surface.

Frequently asked questions

Does a senior citizen's deed need a written maintenance clause for Section 23 to apply in Karnataka?

Not by itself, according to the Karnataka High Court's October 14, 2026 ruling. It held an express condition is not a prerequisite where the application specifically alleges the transfer was made on an understanding that the transferee would care for the senior citizen.

What did the Madras High Court hold on the same question?

On September 21, 2026, the Madras High Court held that Section 23(1) cannot be invoked to cancel a settlement deed that contains no specific condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs, following a Full Bench and a coordinate bench of that court.

Which ruling applies to a property in Bengaluru?

Each High Court follows its own precedents, and neither binds the other. For property in Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court's approach is the one local authorities and courts will look to, unless a larger bench or the Supreme Court decides differently.

What should a buyer check if the seller received the property from a parent?

Read the gift, settlement or release deed, but do not rely on silence about care. Ask whether the parent is alive, has complained under Section 23, or supports the sale in writing, and take legal advice on current Karnataka precedent before paying.

Last updated 2026-10-31. PropNewz Team.