Section 23 gift-deed cancellation requires a meaningful hearing by the deciding authority.

Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking annulment of a registered gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

He alleged that the petitioner had failed to maintain him despite a maintenance condition in the deed.

The Assistant Commissioner annulled the deed.

The petitioner challenged that order, disputing the existence of a maintenance condition and alleging that she had not received a meaningful hearing.

The High Court found that the officer who heard the matter had been transferred after posting it for orders, and the record did not show that the successor officer reheard the matter before making the order.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s order annulling the gift deed under Section 23 could stand when the petitioner disputed that the deed contained a condition requiring her to maintain respondent No. 2.

2. Whether the proceedings were vitiated by denial of a meaningful hearing where the original presiding officer was transferred and the record did not show that the successor officer reheard the matter.

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was invoked in proceedings seeking annulment of the gift deed.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that they require more than issuance of notice: the affected parties must receive a meaningful hearing and consideration.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the order sheet did not specifically indicate that objections had been filed or that, after the officer who heard the matter was transferred, the successor officer heard it afresh.

Although the respondents argued that the petitioner had appeared on several hearing dates, the record did not establish that the successor officer provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deciding the matter.

In view of these procedural irregularities, the Court found that the proceedings did not satisfy natural justice and required reconsideration; it did not determine the substantive dispute over the deed’s maintenance condition.

The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties, with directions to conclude the proceedings within two months of receiving the certified order.

The amount deposited before the High Court was directed to be released to respondent No. 2.

The petitioner’s interim maintenance payment of Rs. 4,000 per month was not to prejudice the fresh determination, and respondent No. 2 was to provide bank details to facilitate payment.