Love & Care In Old Age Impel Senior Citizens To Execute Gift Deed: Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Gift Deed In Favour Of Daughter-In-Law
The Delhi High Court noted that the Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the gift deed was executed in favour of the daughter-in-law in the solemn hope that for rest of her life mother-in-law shall be taken care of.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld the cancellation of a Gift Deed executed by an 88-year-old lady in favour of her daughter-in-law.
An Intra-Court Appeal was preferred by the daughter-in-law, challenging the Judgment of the Single Judge, by which her Writ Petition was dismissed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Though, Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “gift” to mean a the transfer of certain existing moveable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person called the donor, to another called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee, however, in the context of a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his or her son or daughter or even daughter in law, it is not difficult to conclude that it is the love and affection and care in the old age which impels such citizens to execute gift deed.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the gift deed was executed in favour of the daughter-in-law in the solemn hope that for rest of her life, the mother-in-law shall be taken care of and shall be provided with the necessary basic amenities and basic physical needs.
Advocate Pankaj Batra appeared for the Appellant while Advocates Siddharth Banthia and Vaishali Gupta appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
The Respondent (mother-in-law) was a senior citizen aged about 88 years and the Appellant (daughter-in-law) was the wife of the deceased son of the Respondent. An Application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed by the Respondent seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in favour of the Appellant. The Tribunal refused to grant the prayer to the Respondent seeking cancellation of the deed by declaring it to be void.
However, the Appellant was directed not to take any rent and the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station was directed to depute a Beat Officer to visit the premises twice in a month to ensure the safety and security of the Respondent. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an Appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act before the District Magistrate (DM), who allowed the same and set aside the Tribunal’s Order. The Sub-Registrar was directed to cancel the gift deed and this was challenged before the Single Judge by the Appellant via Writ Petition. As the Judge dismissed her Writ Petition and upheld the Appellate Authority’s Order, the Appellant approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, remarked, “Human conduct in the context of the Senior Citizens Act is to be understood considering the relationship between the senior citizen and the beneficiaries of the gift deed and if parents decide to settle the property in favour of a son or daughter, then they do so only with love and affection and with a fond hope that they shall be taken care of in their old age and therefore, love and affection being an the implied condition of execution of the gift deed, subsequent non-maintenance of the senior citizen would attract Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act and the Tribunal in such circumstances is empowered to declare the document as void.”
The Court reiterated that for attracting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the deed in question need not expressly contain a condition that transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, especially in the context of execution of a gift feed.
“It is true that in the application moved by respondent no.1 under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act it has specifically not been pleaded that the gift deed in question was executed subject to the condition that the appellant shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1, however various letters and applications made by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal clearly, disclose and establish that the reason which impelled respondent no.1 to execute the gift deed in favour of the appellant was a promise and hope that appellant shall take care of the needs of respondent no.1 who is considerably old being 88 years of age”, it said.
The Court was of the view that while exercising the powers under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act on an application moved by a senior citizen seeking declaration that the deed is void, the Tribunal is expected to look into all the relevant material and not only the bare contents of the application so made.
“In the instant case apart from several averments in the application, respondent no.1 had placed before the Tribunal various other applications and letters which go on to prove that the gift deed in question was executed by respondent no.1 with such hope that in her old age the appellant shall provide her basic amenities and basic physical needs”, it noted.
Conclusion
The Court added that the Appellate Authority i.e., DM rightly concluded that the deeming clause as contained in Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act is to be invoked for cancelling the gift deed in question.
“The finding recorded by the DM has further been affirmed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by means of the order which is under appeal herein. Learned Single Judge has discussed the material available on record, and has thus concluded that it was a case fit for exercising powers under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act and therefore, has rightly refused to interfere in the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the DM”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Order of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Varinder Kaur v. Daljit Kaur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8641-DB)
