Section 23 cancellation requires a condition to provide basic amenities and physical needs.

The petitioner purchased one house property from her brother by a sale deed dated 3 February 2016 and another from her mother, Ambamma, by a sale deed dated 23 January 2019.

Ambamma applied to the Deputy Commissioner, alleging that the petitioner had obtained the transfers through misrepresentation and undue influence and had fabricated records; she sought cancellation of the deeds and restoration of the properties.

The Assistant Commissioner initially cancelled the 2019 deed and later, by a revised order, also cancelled the 2016 deed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, after which she approached the High Court.

1. Whether the 2019 sale deed could be cancelled under Section 23(1) when it contained no condition that the petitioner provide maintenance or basic amenities to her mother.

2. Whether Section 23(1) could be used to cancel the 2016 sale deed executed by the petitioner’s brother, who was not a senior citizen.

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits a transfer by a senior citizen to be declared void where the transfer was made subject to the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to do so.

In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, (2024) 14 SCC 225, the Supreme Court held that both the stipulated maintenance condition and the transferee’s failure or refusal to fulfil it must be established; such a condition cannot be presumed merely because the transfer is to a close relative.

The 2019 deed conveyed the property to the petitioner for consideration, but contained no term requiring her to maintain Ambamma or provide basic amenities.

Nor did Ambamma’s application allege that she executed the deed in reliance on such an assurance; its allegations instead concerned misrepresentation, undue influence and fabrication.

The statutory prerequisites under Section 23(1) were therefore not established, and the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in cancelling that deed under that provision.

The 2016 deed was executed by the petitioner’s brother, who was approximately 36 years old and did not fall within the Act’s definition of a senior citizen; its cancellation under Section 23(1) was consequently unsustainable.

It directed restoration in the petitioner’s favour of the sale deeds dated 3 February 2016 and 23 January 2019, together with the consequential revenue entries, and directed the Sub-Registrar and revenue authorities to give effect to that restoration expeditiously.