Supreme Court Quashes Gift Deed Executed By Senior Citizen In Favour Of Son After Conditions For Her Maintenance Were Not Complied With

The Court set aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court which set aside the Order of the Single Bench holding that there was no condition for maintenance of the transferor in the Gift Deed.

The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol explained, “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.”

Senior Advocate V. Mohana represented the Appellant, while Advocate Uday Prakash Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

The Appellant executed a Gift Deed transferring her property to her Son (Respondent/donee), stating that the donee would maintain her and provide for all needs. On the same day, the Respondent allegedly executed a promissory note (vachan patra) agreeing to care for the Appellant for life, with the provision that failure to do so would allow the Appellant to revoke the Gift Deed.

However, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent attacked her and her husband for further transfer of property and that the love and affection between the parties had completely ended. She prayed for setting aside the Gift Deed in question by filing an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act).

This application came to be allowed, and the Gift Deed, transferring the property of the Appellant to the Respondent, was declared null and void. The Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the Order.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Order of the Single Bench holding that there was no condition for maintenance of the transferor in the Gift Deed. “Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision, and the function of the Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the gift deed or otherwise contains a clause providing for basic amenities and whether the transferee has refused or failed to provide them. There is no other jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal,” it held.

The Supreme Court noted that there were two documents on the record- one was a promissory note which recorded that the promisor (Respondent) shall 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 was the Gift Deed recording a similar condition, i.e. the donee maintains the donor, and the former makes all necessary provisions for the peaceful life of the Appellant-donor. “Both these documents were signed simultaneously,” the Bench remarked.

The Court referred to its decision in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, where the Court refused to grant the benefit of Section 23 of the Act in the absence of an averment that the transfer in question was subject to a condition for maintenance of the parents.

The Bench explained that the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 of the Act was intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens were 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,” it noted.

Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, the Single Judge of 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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 20)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Mohana; AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare; Advocates Vrinda Kapoor, Kushagra Sharma and Anuj Agarwal

Respondents: Advocates Uday Prakash Yadav, S K Giri, Heena, Antariksh Singh and Yogendra Singh; AOR Ramjee Pandey

Click here to read/download the Judgment