Property transfers to children cannot be cancelled under the Senior Citizens Act without an explicit maintenance condition, Madras HC holds

The petitioner, an octogenarian and father of the third respondent, executed a Settlement Deed and Family Arrangement in favour of his son, allegedly out of love and affection and on the understanding that the son would provide him basic amenities and meet his physical needs.

Alleging that the third respondent failed to maintain and care for him, the petitioner invoked Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the instruments. The second respondent rejected the petition, and the first respondent dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 16(1), confirming that decision.

The petitioner thereafter challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether proceedings under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are maintainable where the transfer document does not expressly require the transferee to provide basic amenities and meet the physical needs of the transferor, but such obligation is claimed to be implied?

Whether the orders rejecting the petitioner’s application and appeal warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits cancellation of a transfer where the transfer of property was subject to the condition that the transferee would provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs.

The Court followed the Full Bench decision in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4343, and the coordinate Bench decision in Karuppan v. District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, holding that the statutory condition must be specifically contained in the transfer document and cannot merely be presumed or implied.

The Court distinguished Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787, because, in that case, the obligation to maintain was expressly recorded in the gift deed and accompanying promissory note.

Although R. Muniyammal, S. Mala and other decisions accepted an implied obligation, the Court held that such view was inconsistent with the Full Bench ruling and the applicable Supreme Court precedents.

The Settlement Deed and Family Arrangement executed by the petitioner contained no specific condition requiring the third respondent to provide basic amenities or meet the petitioner’s physical needs.

Applying the rule that an express statutory condition is necessary under Section 23(1), the Court held that the petitioner could not seek cancellation merely by asserting that maintenance was an implied term arising from the relationship between the parties or the motive of love and affection.

The Court further noted that the petitioner was being maintained by his daughter, that the third respondent had expressed willingness to maintain him if he chose to reside with him, and that the petitioner had sought only cancellation of the instruments rather than maintenance from his son.

Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish either the statutory basis for cancellation or a prima facie failure by the third respondent to provide basic amenities and physical needs.

The orders of the second respondent and the first respondent were found to be lawful and free from procedural or legal infirmity.

The writ petition was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.