Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Cancelling Release Deed under Senior Citizens Act: Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 6 December 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 1303

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a senior citizen’s property transfer be automatically voided if their children don’t take care of them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding the interpretation of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court examined whether a transfer of property by a senior citizen could be deemed void simply because the transferee did not provide for their basic needs, even if such a condition was not explicitly part of the transfer. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which a property transfer can be declared void under the Act. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over property initially owned by Ramti Devi (Respondent No. 1). She had inherited land in Village Basai, Gurugram, Haryana. Ramti Devi had three children: two daughters (one of whom is the Appellant, Sudesh Chhikara, and the other is the mother of Respondent No. 2) and a son, Sunder.

Ramti Devi executed several release deeds: one in favor of her daughters on 14th November 2008, giving them each a one-third share of some of the land, and two more on 24th March 2009 in favor of her son, Sunder, for other portions of the land. Later, Ramti Devi, along with her daughters, filed civil suits challenging the release deeds executed in favor of her son. The civil court declared these release deeds in favor of the son as null and void.

Subsequently, Ramti Devi filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking to cancel the release deed she had executed in favor of her daughters on 14th November 2008. She claimed that her children were not maintaining her, and that the release deed was therefore invalid.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Maintenance Tribunal, acting under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, declared the release deed in favor of the daughters as null and void. The Tribunal noted that Ramti Devi’s children were not taking care of her. This order was challenged by the appellant (one of the daughters) and the second respondent (her nephew) in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This section deals with the circumstances under which a transfer of property by a senior citizen can be declared void. Specifically, Section 23(1) states:

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.—(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that for Section 23(1) to apply, two conditions must be met:

✓ The transfer must be subject to the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

✓ The transferee must refuse or fail to provide such amenities and needs.

The Court noted that if these conditions are satisfied, the transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence, and can be declared void by the Tribunal at the request of the transferor.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court did not properly consider the facts of the case.
• The petition under Section 23 was filed by Ramti Devi under pressure from her son, who had joined hands with her after his own release deeds were declared void.
• There was no evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence in the execution of the release deed in favor of the daughters.
• The Maintenance Tribunal did not conduct a proper inquiry as required by the Act.
• The appellant, being a widow not residing with her mother, was unfairly targeted.
• The appellant and her sister were co-plaintiffs in the civil suits filed by Ramti Devi, indicating a unified stance at that time.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Maintenance Tribunal’s findings should be upheld as they were based on due inquiry.
• The property obtained by the daughters under the release deed was sold to a third party.
• The third-party purchaser had no objection to the relief sought by Ramti Devi.
• Ramti Devi had unequivocally stated that she would not transfer any property to her son or daughter, indicating that she was not acting under her son’s influence.
• The High Court rightly did not interfere in the writ jurisdiction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue addressed was:

✓ Whether the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, were satisfied to declare the release deed void.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the interpretation of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that for a transfer to be declared void under this section, it must be explicitly conditional on the transferee providing basic amenities to the transferor. Since this condition was not established in the case, the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in declaring the release deed void.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court emphasized that the law requires an explicit condition in the transfer deed that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. The absence of such a condition in the release deed was the main reason for setting aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court. The Court also noted that the High Court had not addressed the merits of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of Section 23(1), but rejected them because the language of the provision is clear. The Court emphasized that a transfer can only be deemed void if it is explicitly conditional on the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. The Court also noted that the High Court had not addressed the merits of the case, which further supported the decision to set aside the impugned orders. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the law and the lack of evidence to meet the conditions under Section 23(1).

The Supreme Court held that the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court erred in declaring the release deed void. The Court emphasized that the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Act were not satisfied. The transfer was not explicitly conditional on providing basic amenities to the transferor. The Court observed that the petition filed by respondent no. 1 did not even plead that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. The Court noted that the High Court had not addressed the merits of the case at all.

“Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”.”

“For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: a. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.”

“Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, and both concurred with the judgment.

The implications of this judgment are that it clarifies the conditions under which a transfer of property by a senior citizen can be declared void under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The judgment emphasizes the need for an explicit condition in the transfer deed that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. This interpretation limits the scope of Section 23(1) to cases where there is a clear agreement between the transferor and the transferee regarding the provision of basic amenities. This decision will likely impact future cases involving similar disputes.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It primarily focuses on the interpretation of existing legal provisions. The Court’s analysis emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act. The Court rejected the argument that a transfer could be deemed void simply because the transferee failed to provide for the transferor’s needs, if such a condition was not explicitly part of the transfer agreement.

Key Takeaways

• A transfer of property by a senior citizen can only be declared void under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the transfer was explicitly conditional on the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
• The absence of an explicit condition in the transfer deed means that the transfer cannot be declared void under Section 23(1), even if the transferee fails to provide for the senior citizen’s needs.
• The Maintenance Tribunal must conduct a thorough inquiry and record a finding that the transfer was subject to such a condition before declaring it void.
• High Courts must address the merits of the case when reviewing orders of the Maintenance Tribunal.

This judgment will likely lead to more careful drafting of transfer deeds involving senior citizens. It will also require senior citizens and their families to be more explicit about the conditions attached to property transfers. This decision clarifies the legal requirements for declaring a transfer void and provides a more structured approach to resolving disputes under the Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court and dismissed the petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a transfer of property by a senior citizen can only be declared void under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the transfer was explicitly conditional on the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. This clarifies the interpretation of Section 23(1) and emphasizes the need for an explicit condition in the transfer deed. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but rather clarifies the existing provision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi clarifies the scope of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that a transfer of property by a senior citizen can only be declared void if it was explicitly conditional on the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs. This judgment provides important guidance for lower courts and tribunals in interpreting and applying Section 23(1) of the Act, ensuring that the law is applied fairly and consistently.