Safiya Malik

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed a writ appeal challenging the annulment of property settlement deeds executed by a senior citizen in favor of her son, citing violations of obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court upheld that property transfers made without the fulfilment of the transferee's duty to maintain the senior citizen could be voided as per Section 23 of the Act.

The appeal was filed by Palanisamy, son of the first respondent D. Eswari, a senior citizen. The impugned order dated 22 October 2024 originated from W.P.No.27492 of 2024, wherein the Writ Court had declared as null and void the settlement deeds executed in favor of the appellant. According to the senior citizen’s complaint, the appellant, who is her elder son, misused her trust and allegedly obtained the property through coercion and undue influence. She alleged that he neglected her welfare, refused to provide medical assistance, and failed to support her despite assurances made during the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal.

Also Read: Res Judicata Applies to Criminal Proceedings; “Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Defence Rejected in Earlier Trial”: Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Case

The complaint was initially lodged before the Revenue Divisional Officer, designated as the Tribunal under the Act. The Tribunal, in proceedings dated 11 October 2023, directed the appellant to hand over possession of the subject properties to the senior citizen and not to interfere with her peaceful possession. The Tribunal further warned of legal action under the 2007 Act for non-compliance.

Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s relief, which only ordered payment of monthly maintenance at Rs.5,000, the senior citizen appealed to the District Collector. Subsequently, she moved the High Court seeking annulment of the deeds. The Writ Court found that the properties were the self-acquired assets of the senior citizen and were settled in favor of her son purely out of love and affection, with an implied expectation of care and support.

The Writ Court held that where such care and support are absent, the donor is entitled to invoke Section 23 of the Act to seek revocation of such deeds. The Court stated that express conditions in the settlement deed were not mandatory and that even implied expectations could be sufficient grounds for annulment. The Court therefore declared the deeds void as being sham and nominal.

During appeal, the appellant submitted that he was willing to take care of his mother and provide for her needs. However, the Division Bench noted that this willingness was not translated into conduct, and that strained relationships and neglect had persisted, warranting the relief granted by the lower court.

The Division Bench considered earlier decisions and recorded extensive observations on the statutory obligations arising under the 2007 Act. The Court referred to its own judgment in W.A.No.3556 of 2024 (Thalapathy Ramkumar v. P. Arjunan and others), as well as other judgments including S. Mala v. District Arbitrator, Nagapattinam District and W.A.No.3178 of 2024.

It recorded: "The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a significant enactment that embodies this philosophy by protecting the rights and dignity of elderly citizens of our great nation." It stated that "the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it."

The Court stated that Section 23 of the Act allows for revocation of property transfer deeds if the transferee fails to meet the basic amenities and physical needs of the senior citizen. The Court stated: "The condition need not be expressly made and it is sufficient if it is impliedly made." It noted that "love and affection" could be the consideration and condition underlying such transactions.

In referencing Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court quoted F. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, stating: "The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it." It further referred to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India that "the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to health" are integral to the right to life.

The Court extensively cited from its own decisions and other High Court judgments, stating: "The phrase 'subject to the condition' as employed in Section 23(1), is to be holistically understood... amounts to an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen."

On the issue of whether settlement deeds lacking express conditions could be annulled, the Court referred to Sunita Bhasin v. State of NCT of Delhi and Radhamani v. State of Kerala. It recorded: "Even in the absence of any express condition in the document, 'Love and Affection' being the consideration for execution... becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1)."

The Division Bench further cited Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed under the Act, which mandates that "the District Collector shall ensure that life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity."

The judgment further acknowledged the Supreme Court's judgement in Urmila Dixit v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar, holding that maintenance of dignity and residence form the core of the Act’s objectives. It referred to S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, stating: "Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen."

Also Read: “Further Incarceration of the Petitioners Pending Trial Would Violate Their Right Under Article 21”: Madras High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Proceedings

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the findings of the Writ Court. It dismissed the writ appeal and held that the appellant was obligated to restore possession of the subject properties to the senior citizen.

The judgment stated: "The conduct of the appellant was considered by the writ Court and formed an opinion that the annulment of the settlement deeds alone would protect the livelihood and dignity of the senior citizen." The order of stay granted earlier was also vacated.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Ms. N. Lavanya

For the Respondents: Mr. B. Raveendran; Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: Palanisamy v. Tmt. D. Eswari & Another

Case Number: W.A.No.3788 of 2024

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar

[Read/Download order]