Conditions U/S. 23(1) Senior Citizens Act Need Not Be Explicit: Madras HC Upholds Annulment Of Settlement Deed
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed in 2021 by S. Nagalakshmi, who was 87 years old and suffering from various ailments at the time. The core issue revolved around her request to cancel a settlement deed executed in favor of her son, who also had died prior to the proceedings.
The Madras High Court observed that the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act need not be explicit, but might be implied.
The Court upheld the cancellation of a settlement deed executed by a deceased senior citizen in favor of her only son, emphasizing the protective rights enshrined in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar emphasized the importance of legislative intent in cases involving senior citizens, reinforcing the view that laws must serve to protect their dignity and welfare.
The Court remarked, “The conditions under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act need not be explicit, but might be implied. The love and affection being the consideration, which can be traced out in the Settlement Deed, would be sufficient to hold that such love and affection is an implied condition that the senior citizen will be taken care of by the beneficiary of the Settlement Deed or gift deed. In the event of neglecting the senior citizen, the deed of settlement or gift is liable to be annulled."
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed in 2021 by S. Nagalakshmi, who was 87 years old and suffering from various ailments at the time. During the pendency of the petition, Smt. Nagalakshmi passed away, complicating the proceedings. The core issue revolved around her request to cancel a settlement deed executed in favor of her son, who also had died prior to the proceedings.
In her complaint, Nagalakshmi alleged neglect by her son and daughter-in-law after the death of her son. Prior to her demise, she had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nagapattinam, claiming her grievances, evidencing a scenario of abandonment and lack of care that highlighted the inadequacies of familial obligations towards senior citizens.
During the judicial examination, Advocate K. Subramanian, representing the Appellant, contended that the lower court failed to adequately consider the evidence presented. He argued that Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act mandates specific conditions regarding maintenance to be mentioned in any Settlement or Gift Deed. He claimed the absence of such a stipulation in the executed deed rendered it voidable, and thus the RDO’s decision to cancel the deed was inappropriate.
The Counsel cited numerous case laws, including significant precedents from various courts that interpreted the nuances of the Senior Citizens Act. He underscored how these rulings collectively advocate the principles of protection and welfare for senior citizens, interpreting legislative intentions in favor of the vulnerable demographic.
On the contrary, Additional Government Pleader (AGP) E. Ranganayak, asserted that the RDO's judgment was based on substantial testimonies and evidence that confirmed the neglect allegations. She contended that Nagalakshmi had indeed mentioned her intentions based on love and affection in the Settlement Deed but argued that the post-deed neglect proved the need for cancellation as per the statutory provisions of the Act.
The Bench also referenced previous judgments, including the case of Urmila Dixit v. unil Sharan Dixit and others (2025), where the significance of interpreting the Senior Citizens Act beneficially was asserted to prevent neglect and uphold senior citizens’ rights as encompassing their holistic living conditions, guaranteeing not just survival, but a dignified life.
"In the present case, the senior citizen, both in her complaint and before the Revenue Divisional Officer, categorically deposed that she was completely neglected by her son during his lifetime and by her daughter-in- law. The senior citizen has three daughters, but she executed the settlement deed in favour of her only son, denying equal property rights to her daughters. Therefore, it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughter-in-law would take care of her till her life time. Such a condition being implied under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the decision of the competent authority annulling the Settlement Deed is in consonance with the spirit and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act," the Court noted.
Consequently, the Court upheld the cancellation order issued by the RDO, concluding that the appellant had not provided sufficient grounds to overturn the earlier ruling.
Cause Title: S Mala v. District Arbitrator and Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025:MHC:706]
Appearance:-
Appellant: Advocates K.Subramanian, S.Punniyakotti
Respondent: Additional Government Pleader E.Ranganayaki
Click here to read/download the Judgment
