Love And Affection Is Not An Enforceable Condition For Gift Revocation | Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation For Lack Of Explicit Maintenance Clause Under Senior Citizens Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on 19 June 2025, quashed proceedings initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that a gift or settlement deed can only be cancelled under Section 23(1) of the Act if it explicitly contains a specific condition mandating the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen. In the absence of such a condition, the statutory power to cancel the deed does not arise.
The Court further directed that any encumbrance or entry recorded pursuant to the cancelled settlement be reversed, and the original settlement deed be restored. The proceedings initiated by the Sub-Collector, Kallakurichi, at the request of the petitioner’s mother were held to be without jurisdiction, as she was not the original transferor of the property. The order dated 15 February 2019 passed by the second respondent was accordingly quashed.
The case concerned the cancellation of a settlement deed executed on 6 February 1997 by a senior citizen (the petitioner’s father) in favour of his son. The property involved consisted of various survey numbers in Mattiyakurichi Village, Kallakurichi District, and was registered as Document No.48 of 1997. After the father’s demise, the petitioner’s mother approached the second respondent, the Sub-Collector-cum-First Class Executive Magistrate, under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, requesting cancellation of the deed. The ground cited was that the petitioner had not taken care of her.
Pursuant to her application, the second respondent issued an order dated 15 February 2019 cancelling the settlement deed. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector. However, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to the passing away of the mother in November 2019 and in light of the Hon’ble First Bench decision in K.Raju vs. Union of India, which held that only a senior citizen can file an appeal under the Act.
The petitioner then approached the High Court through the present writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the second respondent’s proceedings and direct deletion of the entries pertaining to the cancellation of the 1997 settlement deed from the records of the Sub-Registrar, Kallakurichi.
The petitioner submitted that the deed was executed absolutely and unconditionally by his father and did not contain any clause reserving a right to revoke it or requiring the petitioner to maintain the transferor. Moreover, the application under Section 23(1) was filed by his mother, who was not the executant of the deed, and thus was incompetent to invoke the provisions of the Act.
In response, the second respondent, who also represented the first respondent, filed a counter stating that the petitioner failed to care for his parents. The deed was accordingly cancelled after due inquiry and opportunity to the petitioner. The respondents relied on the powers conferred under Section 23(1) of the Act and cited a judgment from the Division Bench in S.Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector, asserting that deprivation of love and affection by itself justifies cancellation of a gift.
The Court discussed the transformation of care for the elderly from a moral to a legal obligation following the collapse of the joint family system. It traced the origin of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to the earlier Himachal Pradesh legislation, noting the clear legislative intention to support senior citizens through enforceable legal mechanisms.
In examining Section 23(1) of the Act, the Court stated: "There must be a transfer of property in the form of gift or otherwise by a senior citizen... such transfer must have been effected on condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor... The transferee thereafter refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs."
The Court reiterated that these three conditions must be cumulatively met for invoking Section 23(1). It clarified: "The transfer is deemed to have been made by 'fraud', 'coercion' or 'undue influence'; and the transfer may be declared void by the Tribunal at the option of the transferor."
Citing the Supreme Court in Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., the Court observed: "Love and affection, etc., may be motive for making a gift, but is not a consideration in the legal sense of the term."
It added that conditions in a gift may be precedent or subsequent, but a specific condition as required by Section 23(1) must be explicitly stated.
The Court then referred to the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Subhashini v. District Collector: "The condition as required under Section 23(1) for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer... It is the jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will have to look into."
Similarly, quoting the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner: "Sub-Section (1), in other words, creates a deeming fiction... where the condition of providing for maintenance and the basic needs of a senior citizen is not fulfilled... the transfer can be declared as void by the Tribunal."
It further relied on the recent Supreme Court judgement in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi: "Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23."
Discussing the case of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, the Court clarified that it involved documents with explicit clauses concerning maintenance. There was no deviation from the principle that Section 23(1) requires specific recitals.
Responding to a conflicting view in Mohamed Dayan v. District Collector, the Court said: "This Court is unable to understand as to how the expression 'subject to the condition' can be read to mean an 'implied condition'... A specific condition cannot mean an implied condition."
Justice Venkatesh further stated: "The Court cannot rewrite a statutory provision when the words used by the legislature are plain and unambiguous."
Addressing the two conflicting Division Bench decisions in S.Mala and Easwaramoorthy, the Court held: "The earlier decisions of R.Sekkappan and D.Devi must be followed in preference... the latter decisions are also contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.Vanitha, Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit."
In conclusion, the Court held that the 1997 settlement deed contained no specific clause about providing maintenance or physical needs, and the application was filed not by the executant but by the non-executant mother.
The Court, after examining the statutory scheme and judicial precedents, declared: "The writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.2.2019 is hereby quashed."
It further directed: "If any entry is made in the encumbrance certificate on the file of the third respondent pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the second respondent, the same shall be reversed."
Regarding the legal status of the property transfer, it held: "The said settlement deed dated 06.2.1997 shall stand restored to the file of the third respondent by virtue of this order."
"No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. V. Srimathi for Mr. Vishnu
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Velu, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:1402
Case Number: W.P. No. 4540 of 2022
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
[Read/Download order]
