Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 2, 2025, declared that Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order handing over the possession of properties.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol relied upon S Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors (2021) in which it was observed by the Supreme Court that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.

"Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly," the bench said.

With regard to an observation that Section 23 is a standalone provision of the Act, the bench said, "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. It is directly in furtherance of 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".

Court allowed a petition filed by Urmila Dixit against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment of October 31, 2022, which set aside a single judge bench decision of August 2, 2022.

The single judge bench had confirmed the decision of the Tribunal allowing the application filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking setting aside of a gift deed of September 09, 2019.

The appellant, who was mother of respondent Sunil Sharan Dixit and others, contended she made a gift deed in favour of the son of the house purchased by her in 1968 with a vachan patra / promissory note by the respondent that he would take care of the appellant till the end of her life and if he does not do so, she will be at liberty to take back the gift deed. The son, before the top court, had alleged this vachan patra to be fabricated.

Court discussed the rules of interpretation to be applied to beneficial legislation akin to the Act at hand.

"The preamble of the Act states that it is intended towards more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted," the bench said.

Section 23 of the Act dealt with the transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

In the case, the court found that there were two documents on record. One, a promissory note which recorded that the promisor (respondent) would serve the appellant and her husband till the end of their life, and in the absence of him fulfilling such obligation, the subsequent deed can be taken back by the appellant.

Second, the Gift Deed also recorded a similar condition, i.e. the donee would maintain the donor, and the former will make all necessary provisions for the peaceful life of the appellant-donor. Both these documents were signed simultaneously.

The appellant, however, submitted that such an undertaking stood grossly unfulfilled. Her petition under Section 23 averred that there was a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties.

In such a situation, the court relied upon Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and Anr (2023) to point that the two conditions mentioned therein must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature.

In Sudesh judgment, the apex court had said for attracting the application of Section 23(1), the following essentials were expounded: (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.

"Therefore, the single judge benchof 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. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the division bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation," the bench said.

Case Title: Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit And Ors