Gift Deed Can Be Cancelled For Failure To Maintain Senior Citizens: Chhattisgarh High Court
The High Court held that even in the absence of an express condition in a gift deed, a transfer made in favour of relatives can be declared void under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, where the surrounding circumstances and conduct establish an implied obligation to provide care and maintenance, which is subsequently breached.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a gift deed executed by senior citizens in favour of a relative can be declared void where the transferee fails to discharge the implied obligation of care and maintenance, even if such a condition is not expressly recorded in the deed.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby a gift deed was cancelled, and the transferees were directed to vacate the residential property.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas examined whether the cancellation of the gift deed under Section 23 of the 2007 Act was justified in the absence of an express maintenance condition in the deed, and held: “is an implicit condition attached to this transfer of property by way of gift which was not fulfilled by the transferee and hence the instant case fully satisfies the two conditions as explained by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara (supra) and Urmila Dixit (supra) for attracting Section-23 of the Act”.
Background
The senior citizen respondents had executed a registered gift deed in favour of a close relative in respect of their residential property, based on assurances that they would be looked after and maintained. The respondents continued to reside in the property after execution of the gift deed.
Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and the senior citizens alleged harassment, neglect, denial of basic amenities, forcible confinement to upper floors, and obstruction in access to food, electricity, medical care, and visitors. It was further alleged that the transferees subjected them to cruelty and forced them to shift to an old-age home.
Invoking Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the senior citizens approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the gift deed and restoration of possession. The Tribunal allowed the application and declared the gift deed void, which the Appellate Tribunal affirmed.
Aggrieved, the transferees approached the High Court, contending that the gift deed was unconditional and could not be revoked without an express stipulation requiring maintenance.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first rejected the challenge to the composition of the Maintenance Tribunal, holding that the Tribunal was properly constituted in accordance with Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the applicable State Rules.
On the core issue, the Court held that Section 23 of the Act is a beneficial provision intended to protect senior citizens from neglect and exploitation, and must be interpreted purposively to advance its object.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, the Court reiterated that for Section 23(1) to apply, it must be established that the transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and the transferee refused or failed to provide such amenities and physical needs.
The Court clarified that the existence of such a condition need not necessarily be reflected through an express recital in the gift deed. The condition may be implied from the surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties, and the nature of the relationship.
On facts, the Court found that the gift deed was executed out of love, affection, trust, and expectation of continued care. The conduct of the transferees, including allegations of harassment, denial of basic facilities, and forcing the elderly to leave their homes, established a failure of the implied obligation of maintenance.
The Court further held that a strict construction of Section 23 would defeat the very purpose of the legislation, which is intended to ensure the dignity, protection, and welfare of senior citizens.
The Court additionally noted that writ jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse or beyond jurisdiction, and found no such perversity in the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that “it is a transfer on account of undue influence which becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void, …as such, the orders passed by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not liable to be interfered by this Court”.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the gift deed was executed subject to an implied obligation to maintain and care for the senior citizen transferors, and that failure to fulfil such obligation attracted Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Holding that the transfer was vitiated by undue influence and breach of implied conditions, the Court upheld the cancellation of the gift deed and affirmed the eviction directions passed by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Cause Title: Ramkrishna Pandey & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutrsl Citation: 2026:CGHC:3156)
Appearances
Petitioners: Akshat Tiwari and Sakshi Dewangan, Advocates
Respondents: Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate, Vikrant Pillai, Advocate