Gift Deed by Senior Citizen Can Be Declared Void if Son Fails to Provide Maintenance: Supreme Court clarifies

In URMILA DIXIT V. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS. 2025 INSC 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided on the following question of law:

Whether a gift deed executed by the appellant, a senior citizen, in favor of her son, could be declared void u/S- 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”), due to the son’s failure to fulfill the obligation of maintenance?

The SC ruled in favor of the appellant, ensuring that senior citizens are not left destitute after transferring property based on assurances of care. The Court emphasizing the beneficial nature of the Act, adopted a purposive interpretation, holding that the promissory note, read alongside the gift deed, established an implicit condition of maintenance, satisfying the conditions u/S- 23. It rejected the Division Bench’s strict interpretation, clarifying that Tribunals under the Act have the authority to restore possession to senior citizens to ensure their welfare. Further held that S- 23 is not a standalone provision but is intrinsically linked to the Act’s objectives of providing speedy, inexpensive remedies to the elderly. Consequently, the SC set aside the Division Bench’s judgment, quashed the Gift Deed, and ordered the restoration of possession to the appellant, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in advancing social justice for elderly.

1.BACKGROUND

???? Facts: The appellant (Urmila Dixit), executed a Gift Deed (09.09.2019) in favor of her son (Respondent ), transferring her property,? wherein it has been stated that the Respondent maintains the Appellant & her husband and makes provisions for everything. Simultaneously, a vachan patra (promissory note) was signed, obligating the son to take care of them till the end of their life and in case, he fails to fulfill such obligation, the appellant can take back Gift Deed.

???? Procedural History:

●????? The Appellant filed application u/S - 22 & 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”) before Sub-Divisional Magistrate? seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed on the ground that the respondent attacked her and her husband to compel further transfer of property and that the love & affection b/w parties had ended completely. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed her plea, declaring the Gift Deed null & void.

●????? Respondent appealed against the said order but the Collector dismissed the same, upholding Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order.

●????? Aggrieved Respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order before High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur but the Single Judge upheld the decision of the court below noting that the respondent had not approached the court with clean hands.

●????? Thus, Respondent filed a Writ Appeal before MP HC's Division Bench, which? allowed his appeal and set aside the single judge’s order, holding that:?

1. Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision, and the Tribunal’s role is limited to determine whether the gift deed or otherwise contains a clause for basic amenities and whether the transferee has failed or refused to provide them. The Tribunal has no other jurisdiction.
2. Gift Deed dated 09.09.2019 does not contain any condition for maintenance of transferor.
3. The argument regarding the affidavit dated 07.09.2019 (promissory note)? is not acceptable because if parties intended to subject transfer to maintenance, then the clause to the same effect should have been explicitly included into the gift deed.

2.ISSUE: Whether the MP HCs Division Bench was correct in setting aside the order of its Single Judge ?

3.RELEVANT PROVISION

???? Sec - 23 of the Act - Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances:

(1)?? If any senior citizen transfers his property through a gift or otherwise on condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and? such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs,? the transfer is deemed to have been obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2)? If a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance from an estate that is subsequently transferred, the right to maintenance can be enforced against the transferee if:

(a)? transferee had notice of the right, or

(b)? transfer was gratuitous.

(3)? If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under subsections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

4.SC’s OBSERVATION & DECISION

• SC observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution, particularly u/Art-21. Thus, the court emphasised that the Act and its provisions must be liberally interpreted to prevent abuse of elderly andnbsp; advance the cause of social justice for the elderly.
• According, SC said that Sec-23 of the Act should not receive a strict literal interpretation but rather a purposive interpretation aligned with the Act’s objective i.e. to providenbsp; speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.
• Further, SC observed that the following essential conditions must be fulfilled for application of Sec-23(1) [Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi]
• transfer must be subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
• transferee must have refused or failed to provide such amenities and physical needs.
• Lastly, SC relying on aforementioned observations said that:

○????? The vachan patra (executed alongside the Gift Deed) created an implied obligation for maintenance. The Court held that the two documents must be read together to infer the condition u/S - 23.

○????? Appellant demonstrated in her application u/S-23 that the Respondent had failed to fulfil his promise to? maintain her and her husband and that there is breakdown of the peaceful relation b/w the parties.

○????? Accordingly, SC said that both conditions for application of Sec-23 are fulfilled. Therefore, SC? upheld the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below, which ruled that the Gift Deed to be quashed since the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were not complied with.

○????? Thus, HC’s Division Bench was not correct in setting aside the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below. Hence, SC set aside its decisions and ordered the restoration of the possession of property to the appellant.

○????? Further clarified that tribunals constituted u/the Act,? have the power to order eviction where necessary to protect senior citizens and it is in consonance with the object of the Act.

○????? At last, SC rejected the High Court’s conclusion that Section 23 is a standalone provision, emphasizing that it is intrinsically linked to the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.

{Article By: Mrinmoi Chatterjee & Ritik Kumar}