Author: Abhishek Sanjay Jadhav, ILS Law College
Abstract
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in S. Mala V District Arbitrator & Ors while upholding the order of Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) which annulled a settlement deed made in favour of the son on complaint received from the mother that he and his wife failed to take care of her and neglected her, held that, “conditions under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act need not be explicit, but might be implied. The love and affection being the consideration, which can be traced out in the Settlement Deed, would be sufficient to hold that such love and affection is an implied condition that the senior citizen will be taken care of by the beneficiary of the Settlement Deed or gift deed. In the event of neglecting the senior citizen, the deed of settlement or gift is liable to be annulled.”
Introduction
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 gives the right to senior citizens to approach the Tribunal to declare any transfer of property, by way of gift or otherwise, after the commencement of the Act, as void, in certain circumstances.. It stipulates that such transfer must be with the condition that; (a) transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. if such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs the deed can be annulled.
Here the mother, a senior citizen, had executed a settlement deed in favour of her only son, hoping that he would take care of her till her lifetime. She also had 3 daughters but they were excluded from the property. Later she filed a complaint before the RDO that she was completely neglected by her son during his lifetime and later by her daughter-in-law. Therefore she asked to cancel the settlement deed on the ground of sec 23 (1) of Senior Citizens Act. The RDO upon inquiry found that she was indeed neglected and cancelled the settlement deed.
The Madras High Court while deciding the appeal relied on the recent case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case interpreted Section 23(1) of the Act to hold that “express condition in the deed may not be required and non-maintenance of a senior citizen per se would result in invoking the implied condition for which such gift or settlement deed has been executed by the senior citizen out of love and affection, which is relatable to human conduct.” The madras court observed, given the fact that the mother executed deed in favour of her son excluding daughters from equal rights shows that she had expected that he will take care of her till her lifetime.
The court also relied on Mohamed Dayan vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District and Others which observed that,
“The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to consider human conduct towards them. The Act is pressed into service when the indifferent human conduct towards them violates their security and dignity. Therefore, the provisions of the Act must be interpreted purposefully and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint filed by the senior citizen on the ground that there is no express condition for maintaining the senior citizen. Even in the absence of any express condition in the document, “Love and Affection” being the consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed, such love and affection becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the Act.”
Legislative Intent
The court observed that the parliament enacted the Senior Citizens Act to uphold the dignity and respect of a senior citizen at the time of old age.
Beneficial Construction of Provisions
the high court observed “the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Being a beneficial piece of legislation, it is necessary to interpret it liberally to ensure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of senior citizens are effectively protected. Section 23 is ordained to protect senior citizens and ensure their welfare, and must receive a liberal and beneficial reading”. Therefore, when two or more views are possible, then it is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial legislation, liberally so as to give it wide meaning rather than a restrictive meaning. Also, the judge must interpret a statute in a way that suppresses the mischief it seeks to prevent and promote the intended remedy.
Therefore, accordingly, the Madras High Court rejected the appeal against the cancellation of the settlement deed.
Significance of Judgment
Protection of elderly rights
The judgment reinforces the principle that senior citizens cannot be exploited emotionally and financially in the guise of property transfer. It affirms their right to revoke such transfer when the transferees fail in their moral and legal obligations.
Power to cancel the deed
It also gives the power to cancel such gift deeds or settlements if the children failed to take care of senior citizens even if such a condition is not mentioned expressly in the gift deed or settlement deed.
Advancing beneficial legislation
By expanding the scope of ‘implied condition’ the court ensures that the Senior Citizens Act continues to safeguard the dignity and welfare of elderly individuals.
Conclusion
Therefore, the decision in this case is a notable affirmation of the judiciary's role in protecting the interests of senior citizens. It emphasizes that implied conditions of care and maintenance which can be derived from human conduct and familial relationships are sufficient grounds for nullifying property transfers when such care and maintenance are denied. This case highlights the interplay of legislative intent, judicial interpretation and human values ensuring justice for most vulnerable members of society.
References
The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007, s 23(1), No. 56 Indian parliament 2007
Mohamed Dayan v. The District Collector, Tiruppur District and Others, MANU/TN/5114/2023
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2
