Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Rights: Gift Deed Cancellation Under Maintenance Act (2 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 2 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 20
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar J., Sanjay Karol J. (authored the judgment)
Can a senior citizen cancel a gift deed if their child fails to provide basic amenities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question. This case revolves around a mother seeking to nullify a gift deed made in favor of her son. The core issue is whether the High Court correctly overturned the lower court’s decision to cancel the gift deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Supreme Court bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol delivered the judgment, with Justice Sanjay Karol authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, an elderly mother, purchased a property on 23 January 1968. On 7 September 2019, she executed a Gift Deed in favor of her son, the respondent. This deed stated that the son would maintain her and provide for her needs. The Gift Deed was registered on 9 September 2019. Allegedly, on the same day, a promissory note was also executed by the son, stating he would care for his mother for life. The mother alleged that the son did not fulfill his promise. She then filed an application to cancel the Gift Deed.

The mother claimed that her son attacked her and her husband for further transfer of property. She stated that the love and affection between them had ended. Consequently, she sought to cancel the Gift Deed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed her application. The son’s appeal was dismissed by the Collector. The son then filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed the mother’s application to cancel the Gift Deed. The Collector dismissed the son’s appeal. The Single Judge of the High Court affirmed these orders, noting the son’s failure to serve his parents. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench held that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, only allows the tribunal to check if the gift deed contains a clause for basic amenities. The High Court stated that since the gift deed did not have such a clause, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to cancel the gift deed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This section deals with the transfer of property by senior citizens. Section 23(1) states:

“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 Court also noted the Act’s objective, which is to provide simple, inexpensive, and speedy provisions for senior citizens to claim maintenance. The Act aims to protect the rights of senior citizens, who often face neglect.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the gift deed was made with the understanding that the son would take care of her.
• She submitted that the promissory note and the gift deed were executed simultaneously. This shows that the transfer was conditional on her maintenance.
• The appellant contended that the son failed to provide for her basic needs.
• She argued that the High Court misinterpreted the law by taking a strict view of a beneficial legislation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the gift deed did not contain any explicit condition for maintenance.
• He claimed that the promissory note was fabricated.
• The respondent contended that Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision. It only allows the tribunal to check for a maintenance clause in the gift deed.

The innovativeness of the Appellant’s argument lies in linking the promissory note with the gift deed to establish a condition of maintenance, despite it not being explicitly mentioned in the gift deed itself.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Tribunal, granting benefit of Section 23 of the Act, to the Appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal principles to interpret the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation should be interpreted liberally to promote its objectives.

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Brahmpal v. National Insurance Company [(2021) 6 SCC 512]: The Court reiterated that beneficial legislation must be construed liberally.
• K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob [(2020) 14 SCC 126]: The Court emphasized a purpose-oriented approach for beneficial legislation. It also highlighted the need to avoid literal construction and to identify the mischief the statute was designed to remedy.
• Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2024) 7 SCC 140]: The Court held that the definition of a consumer includes a company or corporate person, in view of the beneficial purpose of the Act.
• X v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 9 SCC 433]: The Court reiterated that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of the beneficiaries when two views are possible.
• S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors. [(2021) 15 SCC 730]: The Court highlighted the purpose of the Act as providing care for the elderly.
• Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai [(1987) 2 SCC 278]: The Court stated that it is a social obligation for both sons and daughters to maintain their parents.
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188]: The Court observed that cases pertaining to maintenance of parents should advance the cause of social justice.
• Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324]: The Court reiterated the principle of advancing social justice in maintenance cases.
• Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India [(2019) 2 SCC 636]: The Court highlighted the rights of elderly persons under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [(2022 SCCOnline SC 1684)]: The Court stated that for Section 23(1) to apply, the transfer must be subject to a condition for maintenance.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: This section deals with the transfer of property by senior citizens and conditions for such transfers.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

The Supreme Court used the authorities to support its view that the Maintenance Act is a beneficial legislation and needs to be interpreted liberally. The court emphasized that the intention of the law is to protect senior citizens. The court also clarified that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if necessary. The court used Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [(2022 SCCOnline SC 1684)] to highlight the essential conditions for Section 23(1) to apply and further interpreted it to include the facts of the present case.

The court stated that the High Court had taken a strict view of a beneficial legislation. The court held that the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the gift deed. The court also clarified that the Tribunal can order the transfer of possession of the property.

“Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well -being of the senior citizens were not complied with.”

“In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after.”

“This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect senior citizens. The court emphasized the beneficial nature of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court was keen to ensure that the law is interpreted to achieve its purpose of providing care and protection to the elderly. The court was also influenced by the fact that the son had not fulfilled his promise to take care of his mother. The court also took into consideration the fact that the gift deed and the promissory note were executed simultaneously.

Key Takeaways

• Senior citizens can cancel a gift deed if the recipient fails to provide basic amenities.
• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is a beneficial legislation. It should be interpreted liberally.
• Tribunals under the Act can order eviction to protect senior citizens.
• A promissory note executed simultaneously with a gift deed can be used as evidence of a condition of maintenance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the possession of the property be restored to the appellant by 28 February 2025. The Registry was also directed to communicate the judgment to the concerned authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh for compliance.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is not a standalone provision. It is intrinsically linked with the objectives of the Act. The court also clarified that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if necessary. This judgment reinforces the rights of senior citizens and provides a mechanism for them to seek redressal if they are neglected by their children. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a gift deed can be cancelled if the transferee fails to provide basic amenities to the transferor, and that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction to protect senior citizens. This case further clarifies the interpretation of Section 23 and reinforces the protection offered to senior citizens under the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to cancel the gift deed. The court emphasized that the Maintenance Act is a beneficial legislation. It must be interpreted to protect senior citizens. The Supreme Court also clarified that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if necessary. The Supreme Court ordered that the possession of the property be restored to the appellant by 28 February 2025.