Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPELLATE
Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024

Urmila Dixit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant
V/s
Sunil Sharan Dixit & others . . . . . . . Respondents 

On 2nd January 2025,  the Supreme Court set aside verdicts of Madhya Pradesh High Court and other lower courts and provided vital clarification with regard to provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act of 2007 [Act].

Facts and background

• In September 2019, Urmila registered a Gift Deed [‘Deed’] in favour of her son Sunil, transferring her property in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh to him.
• As per Urmila’s claim, on the same day, Sunil executed a promissory note/vachan patra [Note] stating he will take care of Mother’s lifetime needs failing which the Deed could be revoked.
• Sometime thereafter, Urmila filed a complaint with Chhatarpur Sub Divisional Magistrate [SDM] claiming that she was illtreated by her son Sunil, based on which Judgement was passed in September 2021 revoking the Deed.
• Sunil appealed to District Collector who upheld SDM’s judgement revoking the Deed, in April 2022.
• Sunil went to Madhya Pradesh High Court where a single Judge too upheld the revocation, in August 2022.
• Sunil then filed a writ appeal with a division bench of High Court against the single Judge’s judgement.
• A Division Bench of MP High Court set aside the single judge’s judgement, on 31st October 2022. The Bench rejected Urmila’s appeal for revocation of her Deed and adjudicated in favour of Sunil.
• Urmila appealed to Supreme Court seeking revocation of Deed in 2024.

Issues 

1. On what grounds can a senior citizen revoke the Gift Deed transferring her property to her children
2. How is Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act of  2007 to be interpreted?

Analysis
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on several of its own verdicts and the Senior Citizens Act, the essence of which is as follows:

• Brahmpal vs National Insurance Company and K.H. Nazar vs Mathew K. Jacob (2021) 6 SCC 512
  A ‘liberal construction’ is essential while adjudicating on ‘beneficial’ Acts, in consonance with the intention behind their legislation which is protection and welfare of the affected parties. Intention of the legislation should be the primary consideration. ‘Beneficial’ legislation must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries instead of focusing on technicalities. 
• S. Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others (2021) 15 SCC 730
  Senior Citizens Act of 2007 is one such Act born out of ‘beneficial’ legislation whose intention is to provide effective maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, in their present social conditions of emotional, physical and financial neglect. As such, a ‘liberal’ interpretation of the Act is required.      
• Vijaya Manohar Arbat Dr vs Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Another (1987) 2 SCC 278
  Section 125 (1)(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) automatically obligates any person having sufficient means to provide financial care to his/her father or mother who is unable to maintain themselves, for an amount to be decided by the Magistrate. Such person may be a son or daughter.
• Ashwani Kumar vs Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 636
  Even though there is no specific provision in the Act for ‘rights of elderly persons’, the organic and forward-looking nature of our Constitution has enabled our courts to recognise and enforce the rights of elderly persons to protect their health and dignity under Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty.
• Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi and Another 2022 SCCOnline SC 1684
  The condition of Transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs of Transferor is never implicit i.e. this condition has to be explicitly incorporated in the gift/transfer deed. Existence of such a condition should be established before a Tribunal, in the event of any claim/complaint from Transferor.

Senior Citizens Act 2007: The essence of Section 23 is as follows:

1. If a Senior Citizen (transferor) gifts or otherwise transfers his property to any transferee subject to the transferee taking care of transferor’s basic physical needs and if transferee fails to do so, transferor has the option of nullifying the gift/transfer.
2. Senior Citizen Transferor’s right to receive maintenance out of a gifted/transferred estate is subject to (i) Transferee must be expressly made aware of this right (ii) Transfer must be gratuitous (voluntary) and not for any consideration.
3. In the event of any Senior Citizen not being able to exercise his above right, he can be represented by any person or organisation authorised by him or by Tribunal constituted under the Act.

Judgment
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated as under:

• The condition that son shall provide lifetime care of his mother is explicit in the Gift Deed as well as the Promissory Note. Mother has averred a breakdown of peaceful relations between parents and son.
• The single Judge of MP High Court has rightly revoked the Gift Deed since Urmila’s  explicit condition had not been complied with, keeping in view the wellbeing of Senior Citizens that is the crux of the Act.
• A Division bench of MP High Court had ignored intent of the beneficial legislation behind the Act and taken a strict view of the Act in its Judgement.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict of Division Bench of MP High Court and ruled in favour of Urmila (mother). Further the Hon’ble Apex Court cancelled the Gift Deed made by Urmila to her son Sunil and directed for the possession of the property (as contained in the gift deed) be restored to Urmila.

For full text of the Judgement:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/41336/41336_2022_17_1505_58238_Judgement_02-Jan-2025.pdf