NEW DELHI: It’s natural for parents to expect that their children would take care of them in their sunset years, but many cases are being reported of the elderly being abandoned after they transfer property to their offspring.In one such case, the Supreme Court on Monday gave an earful to a man for deserting his 74-year old widowed mother after she transferred her assets to him and hinted that the property gift deed would be cancelled if she is not taken care of.A bench of Justices Manmohan and Vijay Bishnoi said that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the son against the Telangana HC order, which had quashed the gift deed and restored the property to his mother.The court also noted that the son had withdrawn Rs 1.6 crore from her joint account without her consent. The bench said that it was not possible to issue notice on his plea, but granted him one last opportunity to repair the relationship and sit with his mother in mediation.The court said that the facts in the case were very “glaring” and “gross”, and his conduct was unbecoming of a son.The bench referred to the high court findings, which had noted that the son had stopped speaking to his mother and compelled her to leave the house, and he was not ready to take her back.“Look at your conduct. After controlling the assets, you compelled the mother to abandon the house, and you are not ready to take her back. Very glaring findings by the high court. Look what a son has done to his mother. It is very difficult to issue notice in this case,” the bench told the son.The HC, in its order, had said that it was difficult to accept that a son can justify severing ties with his aged mother over such trivial issues. “A mother, who makes unparalleled sacrifices in raising her child, cannot be reduced to estrangement and neglect on account of ordinary family disagreements. Such conduct, particularly when it follows immediately after the last transfer of properties and funds, reveals the true intention behind the transactions. The conduct of the son post-transfer is not merely relevant but decisive; it demonstrates that once the properties and funds were secured, the obligation of care was abandoned,” the HC had said.The apex court found no error in the high court order but asked him to amicably resolve the issue through mediation.