Reservation Of Life Interest In Settlement Deed Does Not Satisfy Condition Of Providing Basic Amenities U/S 23(1) Senior Citizens Act: Kerala High Court

The Court set aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the senior citizen’s application. It also rejected the argument that the writ petition abated on his death, holding that a transferee whose property rights are affected by a statutory order is entitled to challenge it under Article 226 without being sent to a civil court.

A Bench of Justice M. A. Abdul Hakhim placing reliance on the Full Bench’s judgment in Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others [2020 (5) KHC 195], noted, “…a mere reservation of life interest or right to collect usufructs from the property has to be enforced against the beneficiary of the document or a subsequent transferee and Section 23(1) does not come to the aid of a transferor seeking that remedy; that neither can Section 23(1) be considered to have interfered with the valuable rights of the transferee nor be taken as imposing any restriction on his/her right when there is a settlement made with reservation of life interest for residence or taking usufructs from the property; and that there can be no implied condition to assume jurisdiction under Section 23(1) merely for the reason that the document contains a reservation of life interest”.

Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appeared for the petitioners and Bijulal, Senior GP appeared for the respondent.

In 2013, the senior citizen executed a settlement deed over 64.320 cents of land and a residential building in favour of his son, reserving a life interest for himself. The son died in September 2013, and his widow later married the second petitioner. In December 2014, the senior citizen applied to the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the deed and evict the petitioners.

The Tribunal, by order dated September 16, 2015, directed review of the mutation and declared his rights in the residential building. The petitioners’ appeal was rejected as not maintainable, since only a senior citizen or parent may appeal under Section 16(1). On July 2, 2018, the Court upheld that rejection and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the senior citizen’s appeal afresh. On August 18, 2019, the Tribunal set aside the deed. He then executed a fresh settlement deed in favour of his grandson on August 26, 2019. The petition was filed on September 3, 2019, and the senior citizen died in December 2019.

The Court, therefore, noted that the deed contained no condition for providing basic amenities, and that neither the application nor the plaints he filed alleged such a condition or its breach. The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [2022 (7) KHC 637], it held that both conditions of Section 23(1) were unmet and that a life interest cannot imply the required condition.

On maintainability, the Court distinguished Antony Scaria and Others v. The District Collector, Kottayam and Others [2020:KER:6560], where the senior citizen’s own rights were at stake. Here the petitioners were transferees. The grandson’s deed, executed eight days after the impugned order, would fall with it and was no bar. The Court noted the deed appeared hasty and aimed at defeating the first petitioner’s rights.

The writ petition was allowed, the orders dated September 16, 2015 and August 18, 2019 were set aside, and the senior citizen’s application was dismissed.

Cause Title: Bindu & Anr. v. The District Officer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:77464)

Appearances:

Petitioners: S. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, Arun B. Varghese and R. Sanjay Sankar, Advocates.

Respondent: R. Azad Babu, Surin George Ipe and Rejitha Rajan, Bijulal, Sr. GP, for the State.

Click here to read/download the Judgment