The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the rights of senior citizens to reclaim property transferred to children who fail to provide promised care, reinforcing the social objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Facts of the Case

The dispute involved an elderly mother, Urmila Dixit (the Appellant), and her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit (the Respondent). The mother had purchased a property in 1968. In September 2019, she executed a Gift Deed transferring the property ownership to her son.

Crucially, the Gift Deed itself and a separate promissory note (vachan patra), signed on the same day, stated that the son was receiving the property with the condition that he would maintain his mother and provide her with all basic amenities and physical needs until the end of her life.

Following the transfer, the mother alleged that her son not only failed to provide the promised care but that relations had deteriorated completely, involving physical and emotional neglect.

The mother approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), acting as the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, requesting the cancellation (or deeming void) of the Gift Deed under Section 23. Both the SDM and the subsequent appellate authority (the Collector) ruled in her favor, cancelling the transfer.

The son then appealed to the High Court. While the Single Judge upheld the mother’s victory, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order, arguing that Section 23 could only be applied if the condition for maintenance was explicitly and formally written into the Gift Deed, taking a strict, narrow view of the law. This led the mother to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue for Consideration

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the cancellation of the Gift Deed by strictly interpreting Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, despite evidence (in the Gift Deed and a simultaneous promissory note) showing the property transfer was conditional upon the son providing lifelong care and basic amenities.

The Court also addressed a secondary issue concerning the power of the Tribunal to order the eviction and possession of the property.

Judgement and Reasoning

The Supreme Court allowed the mother’s appeal and quashed the High Court's Division Bench order, thereby restoring the cancellation of the Gift Deed.

The judgment hinged on the following three pillars of reasoning:

1. The Act is a "Beneficial Legislation"
The Court emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act is a "beneficial legislation" . This means the law was enacted with a clear social purpose: to protect and provide for elderly citizens facing neglect. Therefore, the law must be interpreted with a "liberal construction" and a "purpose-oriented approach."
The Justices reasoned that taking a strict, narrow view of the provision—such as demanding specific, formal legal language within the deed itself—would completely defeat the legislative intent of providing speedy, simple, and inexpensive remedies to the elderly. The law must advance the remedy and suppress the mischief (elder neglect).
2. Condition for Care Must Only Be "Established"
In disagreement with the High Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the condition for providing basic amenities and physical needs does not need to be written in an "overly rigid" or "strictly formal" way within the transfer document itself.
Since the Gift Deed mentioned the donee (son) "maintains the donor" and the separate promissory note explicitly stated the condition of lifelong care, the Court found that the two documents signed simultaneously clearly "established" the condition for maintenance.
By failing to fulfill this established obligation, the son breached the core promise, which, under the law, is deemed to be a transfer made by fraud or undue influence, allowing the mother to void the deed.
3. Tribunals Have the Power to Order Eviction
The Court also clarified that Tribunals under the Act are fully competent to order the transferee (the son) to leave the premises and restore possession to the senior citizen if it is necessary for the elderly person's protection and welfare.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's Division Bench order, quashed the Gift Deed dated September 07, 2019, and allowed the mother's appeal. The son was ordered to restore possession of the property to the Appellant (Urmila Dixit) by February 28, 2025.

JUDGEMENT COPY LINK 🔗

https://share.google/fQdza0mdy6iWH0dtA