Elderly parents can cancel gift deeds executed in favour of their children if the children fail to maintain the parents even if there is no maintenance condition mentioned in the deed, the Court held.
The Madras High Court has ruled that senior citizens have the right to revoke gift or settlement deeds made in favor of their children if the children fail to provide maintenance, even if the deeds do not explicitly mandate such care [S Mala v. District Arbitrator and ors.].
A Bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar noted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, allows senior citizens to revoke property transfers if the beneficiary fails to meet the expectation of providing care and support.
The Court has clarified that this expectation does not need to be explicitly stated in the transfer deed but should be considered an implied condition in all gift deeds executed by elderly parents for their children.
“[The Senior Citizens] Act acknowledges that property transfers from senior citizens, especially to children or close relatives, are often motivated by love and affection. The senior citizen’s decision to transfer property is not merely a legal act but one made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. This love and affection become(s) an implied condition in the transaction, even if the transfer document itself does not explicitly state it. If the transferee does not provide the promised care, the senior citizen can invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled,” the Court’s March 6 ruling said.
“A senior citizen’s decision to transfer property is made with the hope of being cared for. This love and affection becomes an implied condition.”
Madras High Court
The Court stated that a broad interpretation of the Senior Citizens Act is necessary to uphold its purpose of safeguarding the dignity and well-being of senior citizens.
“The law does not require an express condition in the document for maintenance. Instead, it recognizes that love and affection serve as the consideration for the transfer and that this implicit condition is enough to invoke the provision in case of neglect. The Tribunal, in such instances, is empowered to declare the deed null and void, based on the violation of this implied condition,” it added.
An elderly woman, S Nagalakshmi (now deceased), had previously transferred a property to her son. However, she later claimed that after the transfer, she was neglected by both her son and daughter-in-law, particularly after her son’s passing.
As a result, she filed a complaint under the Senior Citizens Act, requesting the cancellation of the settlement deed.
Following an inquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) determined that the 87-year-old senior citizen had been neglected by her daughter-in-law. Consequently, the RDO annulled the property transfer.
The daughter-in-law challenged the RDO’s decision in the High Court. After a single judge dismissed her petition, she filed an appeal before the Division Bench, arguing that Nagalakshmi had not explicitly included any condition in the property settlement deed.
However, the Court noted that the elderly mother naturally expected to be cared for by her son and daughter-in-law during her lifetime. It held that this expectation was an implied condition in the settlement deed. The Court further pointed out that this was why the senior citizen had chosen to transfer the property solely to her son, rather than distributing it among her three daughters as well.
“Therefore, it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughter-in-law would take care of her till her life time. Such a condition being implied under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the decision of the competent authority annulling the Settlement Deed is in consonance with the spirit and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act,” the Court said, while dismissing the daughter-in-law’s appeal and upholding the RDO’s decision to cancel the settlement deed.