top of page

By:

C.S. Krishnamurthy

21 June 2025 at 2:15:51 pm

Parents Before Property

The Bombay High Court’s recent decision upholding the cancellation of a gift deed executed by elderly parents in favour of their son is more than a legal victory. It is a timely reminder that parenthood cannot be reduced to a property transaction. By affirming that parents may revoke a property transfer when children fail to honour their obligation of care and support, the Court has reinforced a principle that is both legal and moral. The verdict in the Ashwin Ramesh Soni v. Ramesh Bachaulal...

Parents Before Property

The Bombay High Court’s recent decision upholding the cancellation of a gift deed executed by elderly parents in favour of their son is more than a legal victory. It is a timely reminder that parenthood cannot be reduced to a property transaction. By affirming that parents may revoke a property transfer when children fail to honour their obligation of care and support, the Court has reinforced a principle that is both legal and moral. The verdict in the Ashwin Ramesh Soni v. Ramesh Bachaulal Soni & Ors., reinforces the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court recognised that when parents transfer property with the legitimate expectation of being cared for, and that expectation is wilfully defeated, the law can restore justice. A gift founded on trust cannot survive when that trust is fundamentally breached. The judgement raises uncomfortable questions. What does it say about society when ageing parents must seek justice against their own children? Why should those who devoted a lifetime to raising families spend their twilight years proving that they deserve dignity? Have we begun to mistake inheritance for entitlement and affection for convenience? Changing Times These are not merely legal questions. They reflect the changing character of Indian families. India takes pride in its tradition of strong family bonds. Close-knit families, cherished traditions and an enduring culture of honouring parents have long defined our collective identity. Such images have long symbolised the country’s cultural strength. But growing reports of elder abuse present a sobering reality. Many parents experience neglect, emotional humiliation or isolation within homes they built. Some are confined to a single room after transferring property. Others are abandoned altogether. The emotional trauma often outweighs the financial loss. The ruling recognises what may be called an unwritten family contract. Parents spend decades sacrificing personal comforts to educate children, fund their ambitions, conduct weddings and build family assets. In return, they expect not luxury but companionship, care, respect and emotional security. By acknowledging that certain family transactions rest on mutual trust rather than legal formalities alone, the Court has reaffirmed that the law will protect vulnerable senior citizens when that trust is exploited. Reports frequently describe retired parents evicted from homes gifted to children, widowed mothers fighting prolonged legal battles for shelter, and elderly couples seeking police protection against their own offspring. Many such cases remain hidden because families fear social stigma more than personal suffering. Family Trust The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted precisely because traditional family safeguards were proving inadequate. Section 23 empowers authorities to declare property transfers void when they are made on the understanding that the recipient will provide for the transferor's basic needs, but subsequently fails to do so. The verdict has given practical meaning to this safeguard by making it clear that the law will not remain a silent spectator when trust is betrayed. Some critics argue that legal intervention weakens family relationships. The opposite is true. Good laws exist not because every family fails but because some do. Just as traffic laws protect responsible drivers from reckless ones, laws safeguarding parents protect families from exploitation without diminishing genuine affection. But society also has responsibilities. Financial advisers should caution senior citizens against transferring valuable assets prematurely. In many situations, a well-drafted will offers greater protection than an outright gift deed. Where property is transferred during one's lifetime, expectations regarding care and maintenance should be clearly documented to minimise future disputes. Children should remember that caring for ageing parents is not charity. It is gratitude expressed through everyday actions. I recall meeting an elderly gentleman at a bank several years ago. He proudly showed me documents transferring his house to his only son and remarked with complete confidence, “Now I have no worries. My son will take care of everything.” His face reflected absolute trust. Thankfully, countless children justify such trust every day. But when that faith is broken, the emotional consequences can be devastating. Indian culture has long viewed caring for parents as a privilege, not a burden. Honouring parents goes beyond living together. A caring phone call, a visit during illness, financial support or shared moments can bring comfort, dignity and belonging. Loneliness often wounds seniors more deeply than disease. When parents must approach courts for protection from their own children, it is time for society to introspect. (The writer is a retired banker and author. He can be reached at krs1957@hotmail.com. Views personal.)

BATNA for Internal Politics

Your authority is limited. Your alternatives decide your leverage

One new problem shows up … especially in Indian MSMEs: You realise your authority is not as strong as your designation. And this is where many leaders get emotionally confused. They think, “I’m the leader. Why is this not happening?”


Simple answer: because in legacy MSMEs, hierarchy is only one power source. Informal power is often stronger: old relationships, ownership proximity, “I’ve been here 20 years,” vendor networks, customer control, even family dynamics.


So, you need a different power lens, one that works without shouting. That’s where BATNA comes in.


Which Seat?

Inherited seat: You may have authority, but you’re still negotiating with legacy power … sometimes inside your own family.

  • Hired seat: You have the title, but you may not have the “last word”. People will test it.

  • Promoted seat: You may have trust, but you’re negotiating with peers who remember when you were “one of us”.


Different seats. Same reality: you will negotiate more than you will command.


Job Offers Metaphor

You’ve seen the difference in a person’s tone when they have options. Someone with one job offer is careful, anxious, overly accommodating. Someone with two job offers is calm, direct, not rude … just clear. Nothing about their IQ changed.


Only one thing changed: Their alternatives. That’s leverage.


BATNA is just a formal word for this. It comes from negotiation theory (Fisher and Ury popularised it in Getting to Yes). It stands for: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.


In human language: If this negotiation fails, what do I do next? If your answer is “nothing”, you have no leverage. And in internal politics, if you have no leverage, you end up doing one of two things:

  • you beg, or

  • you explode.

Both are bad leadership looks.


Why BATNA Matters

People think negotiation is for vendors and customers. Wrong. In MSMEs, the hardest negotiations are internal:

  • “Give me the data on time.”

  • “Stop bypassing the process.”

  • “Follow the dispatch sequence.”

  • “Don’t promise impossible delivery dates.”

  • “Raise issues early, not at the last moment.”


These are negotiations because the other side has ways to resist:

  • delay

  • forget

  • “network” around you

  • create exceptions

  • act helpless

  • escalate to someone above you


So the question becomes: what happens if they don’t agree? If nothing happens, your rule becomes optional.


Uncomfortable Truth

This is where people misunderstand BATNA. They imagine dramatic options: “I’ll fire him.” “I’ll resign.” “I’ll replace the whole team.” That’s not a BATNA. That’s fantasy. In an MSME, your alternatives are usually not dramatic. They’re structural. A real BATNA often looks like:

  • changing the route, not changing the person

  • building a bypass, not winning an argument

  • shifting the decision to a different forum

  • narrowing scope: “Fine, we’ll run the pilot without you”

  • making a gate: “If you don’t update, you won’t get approval”

  • using coalition support (Week 9, we’ll come to that)


BATNA is not about ego. It’s about options you can actually execute.


Internal BATNA

Let’s say a senior person refuses to share numbers.


No BATNA approach: “Please share… please share… why aren’t you sharing… I told you…”


BATNA approach: “Okay. This week, we’ll review only what is on the scoreboard. Anything not on it won’t get discussed or approved.”


Or a team keeps bypassing the new PO flow.


No BATNA: “Stop doing this. I’ve told you.”


BATNA: “Any PO without the standard details won’t be processed. Emergency exceptions only through me, and we’ll log them publicly.”


Or a salesperson keeps overpromising delivery.


No BATNA: Argue repeatedly.


BATNA: “Quotations will carry a standard lead time unless production confirms. If you want exception lead times, you must bring confirmation in writing.”


Notice: no shouting. No moral lecture.


Just a shift in the rules of the game.


That’s leverage.


(The writer is a co-founder at PPS Consulting. He is a business transformation consultant. He could be reached at rahul@ppsconsulting.biz.)

Comments

bottom of page