Daughters who received their father’s properties ordered to pay him ₹10,000 each monthly after deed cancellations were set aside

J. Babu Naidu, a senior citizen, sought cancellation under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”) of three settlement deeds executed in 2015 in favour of his daughters, alleging that they had failed to provide him basic amenities and physical needs. The Revenue Divisional Officer found in his favour and cancelled the deeds. The daughters challenged that order, contending that the deeds imposed no maintenance condition. The senior citizen maintained that such an obligation arose from the circumstances and purpose of the transfers.

The Court noted that the deeds contained no maintenance clause and that the senior citizen had not pleaded that they were executed subject to such a condition.

1. Whether the settlement deeds could be cancelled under Section 23 when they contained no condition requiring the daughters to provide basic amenities and physical needs, and no such condition had been pleaded before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

2. Whether the Court should direct the daughters to pay monthly maintenance to the senior citizen notwithstanding that it set aside the cancellation order.

Section 23(1) of the Act permits a transfer to be declared voidable where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Relying on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Another, 2024 (14) SCC 225, the Court held that a condition requiring the transferee to provide the senior citizen’s basic amenities and physical needs must be established; it is not necessarily attached to a transfer made to a near relative and cannot simply be presumed from the relationship or the transferor’s expectations.

The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4343, for the proposition that Section 23 cannot be invoked where the gift deed contains no such term or condition.

It followed the reasoning set out from Karuppan v. District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, W.P. No. 4540 of 2022, dated 19 June 2025, that the statutory condition cannot be implied.

The deeds contained no obligation to maintain the senior citizen, and his Section 23 petition alleged failure to maintain him without pleading that the transfers were made subject to such a condition.

Applying Sudesh Chhikara and the cited Madras High Court authorities, the Court concluded that the necessary statutory condition had not been established; the Revenue Divisional Officer therefore could not cancel the deeds on the basis of non-maintenance alone.

Separately, the Court noted that the senior citizen had a lifetime right of residence in the properties and collected rent from them, but directed the daughters to provide maintenance.

It also directed the daughters to pay the senior citizen ₹10,000 each per month, effective 1 October 2026, during his lifetime.

No order as to costs was made.