Tribunal Duty to Declare Gift Deed Void Under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act if Maintenance Condition Is Breach

The petitioner, a senior citizen, executed a registered deed of gift on August 7, 2015, transferring his dwelling house to his son, the opposite party

The deed included a clause expressing the "belief" that the son would continue to provide care and service to the parents

Subsequently, the son executed a "Jiban Sattar" (Life Estate) deed on August 10, 2015, allowing the parents to reside in the property for their lifetime

Following the son's marriage in 2017, he allegedly ill-treated and evicted the petitioner, forcing the petitioner to take shelter with his daughter

The petitioner sought cancellation of the gift deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The SDO and the Appellate Tribunal (District Magistrate) ordered the son to allow the parents to reside in the house but failed to address the prayer for cancellation of the gift deed

1. Whether the "belief" or expectation of care stated in a gift deed constitutes a "condition" for the purpose of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to cancel the gift deed despite the breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen

The Court applied Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which creates a legal fiction that a transfer of property is deemed fraudulent or under undue influence if the transferee fails to provide basic amenities/physical needs, provided the transfer was subject to such a condition

It relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2024) 14 SCC 225, which established that the condition of providing amenities is sine qua non for Section 23(1)

however, it followed the more liberal interpretation in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2024) and Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector (2025), which emphasize that as beneficial legislation, the Act must be construed to further the legislative intent of protecting senior citizens over strict technicalities

The Court observed that the gift deed specifically contained a clause where the donor expressed that the son would look after him in the same manner in the future

The court determined that the lower authorities (SDO and DM) failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction under Section 23 by only ordering "possession" without addressing the "validity" of the gift deed

The Court reasoned that once a breach of the obligation to maintain is found, the first step under the Act is the cancellation of the gift deed

Since the "Life Interest" deed was dependent on the son's title derived from the gift deed, the cancellation of the gift deed would naturally revoke the subsequent life interest deed, reverting full title to the father

The Tribunal was ordered to complete this process within 30 days of the order. The civil revision was disposed of in favor of the petitioner