Can Parents Void Gift Deeds Due to Her Children’s Neglect Under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act ?
Such conditions must be clearly established.
Transfers must have a condition of providing care to be void under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.
Both the condition of care and failure to provide care must be proven.
Facts of the Case:
Respondent no.1 (Ramti Devi) filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She inherited lands and executed release deeds transferring shares of her property to her daughters (the appellant and respondent no.2’s mother) and son (Sunder). These release deeds were later challenged in civil suits and declared null and void. Respondent no.1 claimed that her children were not maintaining her, leading her to seek the cancellation of the release deeds.
Case of the Appellant:
The appellant, Sudesh Chhikara, argued that the High Court failed to consider the facts. She contended that the execution of the release deed was not influenced by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. She emphasized the lack of material evidence and inquiry by the Maintenance Tribunal and asserted that the conditions of Section 23 were not met.
Case of the Respondent:
Respondent no.1 argued that her children failed to maintain her, making the release deeds void under Section 23 of the 2007 Act. She maintained that the property was sold by the transferees without her consent and that she acted independently, not under the influence of her son.
Argument of the Appellant:
The High Court did not consider the facts.
No evidence indicated that the release deed was vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
The Maintenance Tribunal failed to conduct an inquiry as per the 2007 Act.
Conditions of Section 23 were not met as there was no stipulation that the transferees would provide basic amenities and physical needs.
Argument of the Respondent:
The property was transferred to third parties by the transferees.
The transfer was made independently, and respondent no.1 was not influenced by her son.
The Maintenance Tribunal conducted a due inquiry and held the release deed void.
Law Points:
- Applicability of Section 23 of the 2007 Act depends on the transfer being subject to a condition of providing amenities. (Paragraph 12)
- The existence of conditions attached to the transfer must be established. (Paragraph 13)
- No evidence or plea that the release deed was subject to such a condition. (Paragraph 14)
- Orders from the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be sustained without meeting the conditions of Section 23. (Paragraph 15)
- High Court failed to consider the merits of the case. (Paragraph 15)
- Section 23 of the 2007 Act requires that the transfer be made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. (Paragraph 12)
- For Section 23 to apply, both conditions must be met: transfer subject to condition and failure to provide amenities. (Paragraph 12)
- Transfers often made out of love and affection without expectation of return; conditions must be established. (Paragraph 13)
- The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 23 relies on fulfilling the twin conditions. (Paragraph 14)
- Failure to plead the necessary conditions invalidates the Tribunal’s order. (Paragraph 14)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court. The petition under Section 23 of the 2007 Act by respondent no.1 was dismissed.
General Point of View :
The Supreme Court found no evidence that the transfers were conditional on providing care and dismissed the mother’s petition.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sudesh Chhikara, allowing the appeal and invalidating the Maintenance Tribunal’s decision.
Expert Analysis on Legal Points and Propositions :
Transfers must have a condition of providing care to be void under Section 23 of the 2007 Act. Both the condition of care and failure to provide care must be proven.Transfers are often made out of affection without conditions.The Tribunal’s jurisdiction depends on fulfilling these conditions.Lack of evidence or plea invalidates the Tribunal’s decision.
Section 23 applies only if care conditions are attached to the transfer.Such conditions must be clearly established.No evidence or plea of such conditions was present in this case.Orders from the Tribunal cannot stand without meeting these conditions.High Court did not address the case merits properly.
Discover how landmark legal principles shape everyday justice. Click the link to explore the full judgment!
Please read the full disclaimer. This Post is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Always consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal matters.
About Post Author
