Introduction
In our previous blog post (accessed here), we discussed the judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi & Anr[1] (Sudesh Chhikara), whichheld that a gift or transfer of property by a senior citizen may be declared void by a Maintenance Tribunal only if certain conditions as set out in section 23(1) of the under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) are fulfilled.
These conditions are as follows and must both be fulfilled as per the Sudesh Chhikara judgment:
- The transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and
- The transferee refused to or failed to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
In January 2025, the SC once again opined on the first condition of Section 23(1) in a judgment passed in the matter of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.[2] (the SC Judgment). The SC Judgment has, however, raised more questions than it answers, as we discuss in this blog post.
Background of the SC Judgment
The SC Judgment was borne out of an appeal filed by Mrs. Urmila Dixit (the Appellant) to an order passed by the division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (MP HC).
In 2019, the Appellant had executed a gift deed (Gift Deed) in favour of her son (the Respondent), with respect to land she had purchased in 1968. In 2020, the Appellant filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur (Tribunal), under Sections 22 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act for setting aside the Gift Deed, alleging that the Respondent had attacked the Appellant and her husband and that the love and affection between her and her son had completely ended.
Ruling in favour of the Appellant, the Tribunal declared the Gift Deed void. The Collector, District Chhatarpur, and the single judge of the MP HC affirmed the order. Aggrieved by these orders, the Respondent sought relief by filing a writ petition before the division bench of the MP HC, which set aside the order of the single judge. Aggrieved by the order of the division bench of the MP HC, the Appellant sought relief from the SC.
Factual Discrepancy
It is relevant to highlight that the facts narrated in the SC Judgment differ from those in the MP HC in some key aspects:
- The SC Judgment states that the Gift Deed mentioned that the Respondent must maintain the Appellant and her husband and “make provision for everything”; however, the MP HC judgment records that there is “no condition for maintenance at all in the gift deed.”
- There is also a divergence regarding a document supporting the Gift Deed. The SC mentions that on the same day as the Gift Deed, the Respondent had allegedly executed a vachan patra/promissory note, promising to provide care and basic amenities to the Appellant for the remainder of her life, failing which the Appellant would have the right to “take back” the gift. While the SC Judgment observes that the Respondent disputed the authenticity of this promissory note alleging that it was fabricated, the SC did not examine the promissory note’s validity. On the other hand, the division bench of the MP HC refers to an “affidavit” of the Respondent executed two days before the execution of the Gift Deed, undertaking to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the Appellant. There is no reference to the promissory note in the judgment of the division bench of the MP HC.
MP HC Ruling
Based on the facts narrated above, the division bench of the MP HC opined that since the Gift Deed did not contain a condition that the transferor should provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, the authorities would not have the authority to pass an order setting aside the Gift Deed under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. While the MP HC passed its judgment before the SC ruling in Sudesh Chhikara, its principle is consistent with the SC’s later ruling in Sudesh Chhikara.
The MP HC also held that since Section 23 is a standalone provision for declaring a gift deed as void, a Maintenance Tribunal established under the Senior Citizens Act has no scope to pass an order to hand over possession to the Appellant.
SC Ruling in the SC Judgment
The SC observed that a beneficial legislation, such as the Senior Citizens Act, must receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objects it seeks to serve; that is, securing the rights of senior citizens in view of the challenges they face.
Keeping this objective in mind, the SC asserted that the two limbs set out in Sudesh Chhikara pertaining to Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly, such that. it would render the intent of the Senior Citizens Act otiose. Accordingly, on reviewing the conditions in the Gift Deed and the promissory note, the SC held that the Gift Deed be cancelled as the conditions for the well-being of the Appellant and her husband were not complied with, thereby setting aside the order of the division bench of the MP HC.
On whether tribunals constituted under the Senior Citizens Act could hand over possession of property, the SC answered in the affirmative, relying on earlier jurisprudence holding that Tribunals could order evictions if necessary to ensure protection of senior citizens. The SC also clarified that section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act is not a standalone provision as it is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Senior Citizens Act and furthers it.
Our views
The SC Judgment reinforces the protective nature of the Senior Citizens Act – emphasising the need for securing the rights of the senior citizens and their welfare – and urges a liberal interpretation be taken.
However, we find that the SC Judgment raises the following questions:
- If, in this case, the Gift Deed contained a provision that the transferor must “make provision for everything”, then arguably Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act was satisfied on a plain reading of the provision. So, did the need to interpret the Senior Citizens Act liberally arise at all?
- If the Gift Deed did not contain such a provision (based on which the division bench of the MP HC delivered its judgment), did the SC base its decision on a contemporaneous document (such as a promissory note) which set out this condition? (The SC Judgment does not clearly answer this.)
It is also unclear why the MP HC judgment and SC Judgment differ on the fundamental facts on which the legal question turns in this case.
Our view therefore, is that if a senior citizen intends to gift a property to their child or heir on the condition that the transferee provides basic amenities to them or caters to their physical needs, then it is prudent to ensure that a gift or transfer deed includes an express provision to this effect.
For further information, please contact:
Shaishavi Kadakia, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
shaishavi.kadakia@cyrilshroff.com
[1] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684.
[2] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2.
