Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, which had declared void a registered gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his son and grandson. The Court held that even in the absence of an express recital in the gift deed, there exists an implied expectation that a senior citizen who parts with property in the evening of life would be cared for by the transferee. Neglect and denial of basic amenities, in such circumstances, attract the deeming fiction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Court emphasized that the senior citizen, aged 88 years, was entitled to protection of his property rights and found no perversity in the Tribunal’s or Appellate Authority’s orders. The petition was dismissed, with three weeks granted to the petitioners to remove their belongings from the disputed flat.
Facts
The case revolved around a dispute between an elderly father (respondent) and his son with daughter-in-law (petitioners). The senior citizen, aged 86 at the time, alleged that while he was undergoing treatment for suspected throat cancer and was hospitalized, his son coerced him into executing a Partnership Deed (2 August 2022) and later a registered Gift Deed (24 August 2022) transferring a residential flat in Mumbai.
Following these transactions, the senior citizen claimed his son and daughter-in-law withdrew large sums from his accounts, subjected him to harassment, and confined him to a single room in the flat, locking the other rooms. Neglected, humiliated, and denied necessities, he approached the Maintenance Tribunal under Sections 5 and 23 of the 2007 Act, seeking declaration of the gift deed as void.
The Tribunal found that the gift deed had been executed under the hope of maintenance, but the petitioners had neglected the senior citizen. The deed was thus declared void. The Appellate Authority upheld the Tribunal’s findings. The petitioners, aggrieved by eviction from the flat, approached the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal erred in declaring the gift deed void under Section 23 of the 2007 Act in the absence of an express recital that the transfer was conditional upon providing maintenance.
- Whether the orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Authority were arbitrary, mechanical, or passed without due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
- Whether the execution of the deed in circumstances of the senior citizen’s illness and subsequent neglect justified application of Section 23.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the gift deed was executed voluntarily and out of love and affection, without fraud, coercion, or duress. They argued that there was no recital in the deed making it conditional upon maintenance and therefore the Tribunal could not invoke Section 23. The senior citizen, they maintained, had consented after family discussions.
They also submitted that the Tribunal denied them proper opportunity to produce material evidence and passed an order bereft of reasoning. The Appellate Authority, they argued, mechanically concurred with the Tribunal without examining their objections. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022 SCC Online SC 1684) to assert that the twin conditions of Section 23 were not satisfied.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent (senior citizen), represented through counsel, argued that the execution of the deeds during hospitalization for suspected cancer reflected coercion. After divesting him of property rights, the petitioners neglected and failed to provide for his physical, emotional, and financial needs.
Counsel stressed that the 2007 Act is a beneficial legislation, intended to protect senior citizens from destitution, and must be interpreted to advance its object. They argued that neglect and non-maintenance post-transfer justified the Tribunal’s decision. Reliance was placed on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025) 2 SCC 787 and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Varinder Kaur v. Kaljit Kaur (LPA No. 587 of 2025), which recognized that love and affection itself is an implied condition in gift transfers by parents, and neglect attracts Section 23.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scheme of the 2007 Act, particularly Section 23, which empowers Tribunals to declare void any transfer by a senior citizen subject to the condition of maintenance if the transferee fails to fulfill such obligation.
The Court noted that two conditions must be met:
- Transfer subject to condition of providing basic needs.
- Refusal or failure to fulfill that obligation.
The Court emphasized that even absent express recital, such conditions may be implicit where transfers are made in old age, particularly gifts, which naturally carry the expectation of care.
Precedent Analysis
- Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (SC 2022): Clarified that conditions of Section 23 must be established, but recognized legal fiction deeming transfer as fraudulent if conditions are met.
- Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (SC 2025): Emphasized the beneficial nature of the 2007 Act, requiring interpretation advancing senior citizens’ rights.
- Varinder Kaur v. Kaljit Kaur (Delhi HC 2025): Held that express recital is not mandatory, since gifts by parents are inherently premised on love, affection, and hope of being cared for.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the Tribunal erred for want of recital in the gift deed. It observed that the circumstances of hospitalization, suspected cancer diagnosis, and execution of deeds during such vulnerability suggested coercion and imbalance of power.
The Court emphasized that the senior citizen’s testimony of neglect—being confined to one room, denied necessities, and efforts at reconciliation being ignored—was uncontroverted. The explanation of “sheer coincidence” for execution during hospitalization was found implausible.
It held that neglect and withdrawal of support after divesting the senior citizen of property was sufficient to invoke the deeming fiction under Section 23. The Tribunal and Appellate Authority, therefore, committed no error.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Authority declaring the gift deed void. The petitioners were directed to remove their belongings from the flat within three weeks. The Court reiterated that the Act of 2007 must be construed in a manner that safeguards the dignity and property rights of senior citizens in their twilight years.
Implications
This judgment underscores that:
- Gift deeds executed by senior citizens carry an implicit expectation of care, even without express recital.
- Neglect post-transfer justifies declaring such transfers void.
- Courts will adopt a purposive interpretation of the 2007 Act to prevent destitution of senior citizens.
- Execution of transfers during vulnerability (such as illness) will be closely scrutinized.