Section 23 permits cancellation only when an express basic-amenities condition is breached.

Respondent No. 4, a senior citizen, executed a settlement deed in 2013 in favour of his son, reserving a life interest in the property.

After the son’s death, Respondent No. 4 applied under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”) for cancellation of the deed and other reliefs.

The Maintenance Tribunal made directions concerning mutation and the senior citizen’s rights in the residence; on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the settlement deed, cancelled the mutation and directed the petitioners to vacate the residence

Respondent No. 4 transferred the property to his grandson after the Appellate Tribunal’s order and before the petition was filed.

Respondent No. 4 later died, and his legal heirs and the grandson were joined as parties

The petitioners challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order, including on the ground that the statutory conditions for cancellation under Section 23(1) were absent

Whether Section 23(1) of the Act authorised the Maintenance Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal to cancel the settlement deed when it contained no express condition requiring the transferee to provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs

Whether the petition was maintainable despite the transfer of the property to Respondent No. 9 before filing and the death of Respondent No. 4

Section 23(1) of the Act permits a transfer by a senior citizen to be declared voidable only where the transfer was made subject to a condition that the transferee would provide the transferor’s basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee has refused or failed to do so; both conditions must be satisfied

Following the Full Bench decision in Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode, 2020 (5) KHC 195, the condition must be expressly stated in the transfer document; a mere reservation of life interest does not imply it

A person whose property rights are affected by a statutory order may challenge it under Article 226, and the challenge does not become unavailable merely because the property was transferred after that order

The Court found that the settlement deed contained no express obligation to provide the senior citizen’s basic amenities or physical needs, and that his application and the related plaints did not allege such a condition or its breach

The life interest reserved in the deed was not a substitute for the statutory condition required by Section 23(1)

The Court therefore held that the statutory authorities lacked jurisdiction to cancel the deed under that provision.

The later transfer did not prevent review of the legality of the order on which the transfer rested; if that order was set aside, the transfer made on its basis would also lose its foundation

The Court distinguished Antony Scaria because this petition was brought by a transferee challenging an order affecting property rights, not by legal heirs seeking to pursue a deceased senior citizen’s personal statutory claim