Tying up legal loose ends
T. RAMAPPA
|
The chances of heartburn are less if parents make proper legal disposition of property when they are still able.
|
Photo: AFP
Planning for a happy old age...
It makes one sad to read news of elderly couples, most of them without children of their own but owning immoveable property, being killed. Needless to say, the police cannot be everywhere. The steps to protect oneself, in old age particularly, have to be taken by the individuals themselves. But most of them seem to contribute to their own d tragic end by their not being aware of the dangers they are exposed to in a society of changing values.
The problem arises when an elderly person owns property and lives with his/her own son. Unless this person makes a proper legal disposition of the property, with honest and competent legal advice, while he/she is still physically and mentally alert, he/she will not leave a legacy for his son but a problem in the form of litigation by competing claims of relatives or land-grabbers. This is usually put off till literally the last minute. There are cases where people sign their wills in what is called the death-bed and also where one of the children takes the signature of the parent in a hospital in his last moments. It is neither a proper discharge of their duty as a parent to the children nor a responsible way of disposing of property.
Complications
The problem is somewhat complicated when the person owns property and has no children. The bulk of the victims fall under this category. Past 60, every day of delay in making a proper disposition of the property will expose him or her to exploitation and danger. There should be introspection as to whether the source of potential danger should be carried further.
Many of these victims are reported to have discussed with total strangers, not family members, their intention to dispose of their property. Some complicate matters for themselves by adopting a son. True, the law permits and enables adoption, but matters such as the decision to adopt and the age of the person at the time of his deciding to adopt and the age of the one adopted are to be given serious consideration and if ignored would turn out to be seeds of problems.
Anyone past middle age making an adoption will be introducing an unnecessary and hazardous complication of his affairs. Since it is now common to adopt grown up young men, where permitted by law, and from different social backgrounds, identity of outlook on crucial matters cannot be taken for granted. The danger would present itself if the adopted son were to be psychologically disaffiliated with his new family and would not hesitate to work with criminals to get at the property. If property is disposed of when one can act independently and proper arrangements for future maintenance are made, under legal advice from a family lawyer, the need for an adopted son would not arise at all. In fact such a person would cease to be attractive for a potential adoptee and this would eliminate the physical danger to the childless person.
Not broad-based
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not offer protection to childless persons past 70 and owning property and are exposed to physical danger. That Act deals with provision of maintenance by one’s children or relatives inheriting the senior citizen’s property.
Disposition of property is to be treated as a private matter, more so by childless elderly persons. It is to be done when one is strong enough to deal with the mechanics of the transaction and not to be postponed for the sun-set years.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
