“Providing Food and Shelter Would Be Insufficient”: Madras High Court Declares Settlement Deed Void for Failure to Ensure Dignified Life of Senior Citizen
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar declared as void a settlement deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his son. The Court held that the execution, though stated to be out of love and affection, attracted the deeming clause under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the son and confirmed the direction issued by the writ court, requiring the son to hand over vacant possession of the property to the senior citizen.
The writ appeal was filed against the judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.P. No. 16468 of 2024. The appellant is the son of the senior citizen, who was the writ petitioner. The senior citizen had filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Coimbatore South Division, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He stated that he had a son and a married daughter, and that he had been driven out of his house and compelled to execute a settlement deed.
The senior citizen submitted that following the execution of the settlement deed, he was neglected by the appellant and forced to vacate his home, despite having a share in it. He sought a declaration that the settlement was null and void under the Act.
In his reply, the appellant stated that the senior citizen had voluntarily chosen to live separately with his daughter and had not been coerced into executing the settlement deed. The appellant admitted that the senior citizen had filed two police complaints against him, both of which had been closed. He further stated that the deed was executed voluntarily out of love and affection and denied allegations of fraud or coercion. He offered to pay maintenance of ₹12,500 per month.
The Revenue Divisional Officer accepted the appellant's submissions and directed him to pay ₹12,500 per month as maintenance. The senior citizen appealed to the District Collector, who confirmed the RDO’s order. Dissatisfied, the senior citizen filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to set aside the orders of the RDO and District Collector and for a declaration that the settlement deed was void.
The writ court examined the nature of “normal life” under Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizens Act and declared that merely offering food and shelter did not suffice. It allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the RDO and District Collector, declared the settlement deed void, and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the senior citizen.
The present writ appeal was filed by the son, challenging the order of the writ court.
The appellant’s counsel submitted that the condition contemplated under Section 23 was not explicitly mentioned in the settlement deed and that in the absence of such a condition, the complaint was not maintainable. He argued that the deed was executed voluntarily out of natural love and affection and that the declaration of voidness by the writ court was contrary to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The senior citizen’s counsel opposed the appeal and recorded that the statements made before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority clearly indicated that the appellant had forced the senior citizen to execute the deed and failed to maintain him thereafter. The deed, according to the senior citizen, was executed on the expectation that he would be maintained, which was not honoured.
The Division Bench recorded that the law must be interpreted to protect the dignity of senior citizens, in line with Article 21 of the Constitution and the objectives of the Senior Citizens Act. The Court recorded:
“Normal life includes security and dignity. In the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it includes decent medical facility, food, shelter with dignity and security.”
It was recorded that the mere willingness of children to provide food and shelter is insufficient under the Act. The Court stated:
“Children/relatives defending their case merely on the ground that they are willing to provide food and shelter, cannot be considered as a ground for sustaining the settlement deed.”
The Court referred to earlier judgments, including S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Radhamani v. State of Kerala, and Urmila Dixit v. Government of NCT of Delhi, and recorded that the existence of an express condition is not a prerequisite under Section 23(1). It stated:
“The plain language of Section 23 does not require the condition... to be stated in writing. The condition can be either express or implied and should be understood based on the conduct of the transferee before and after the execution.”
It recorded that a deed executed out of love and affection carries an implied expectation that the transferee will look after the senior citizen, and the failure to do so attracts the deeming clause under Section 23(1):
“Love and affection being the consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed... becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1).”
The Court referred to the legislative intent as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and noted that the purpose of the Act is to enable senior citizens to lead a life with dignity and protection.
The Bench also examined the role of the Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act and recorded:
“The Tribunal is empowered to conduct an inquiry in a summary manner... and may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.”
It further recorded that the power to cancel such deeds is an extraordinary remedy granted by the legislature to protect senior citizens who may otherwise have no legal recourse in common law.
In reviewing the writ court’s approach, the Division Bench stated:
“The approach of the Writ Court is balanced and in consonance with the legislative intent and spirit of the Act. The right to life and dignity being a fundamental constitutional right, Courts cannot adopt a midway path.”
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order passed by the writ court on 19.08.2024 in W.P. No. 16468 of 2024. The Court recorded:
“The order dated 19.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.16468 of 2024 stands confirmed and thus, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The Bench further recorded that the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, under Rule 20(2)(i), mandate the District Collector to protect the life and property of senior citizens and ensure they live with security and dignity.
Therefore the Court directed the District Collector to implement the writ order without delay. It stated:
“The District Collector is directed to implement the writ order dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.No.16468 of 2024 forthwith and protect the senior citizen under the provisions of Act and Rules.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.J. Parthasarathy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate, Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: Thalapathy Ramkumar v. P. Arjunan and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:923
Case Number: W.A. No. 3556 of 2024
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar
[Read/Download order]
