Madras HC: Senior Citizens Can Cancel Gift or Settlement Deeds If Neglected by Beneficiaries

High Court upholds right of elderly to revoke property transfers under the Senior Citizens Act if children or relatives fail to care for them

Chennai: Senior Citizens can cancel the gift or settle deeds executed in favour of their children or close relatives if they failed to take care of them, even if it was not explicitly mentioned in the conditions imposed in the deeds, the Madras High Court has ruled.

A division bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and K Rajasekar dismissed an appeal filed by S Mala, daughter-in-law of deceased S Nagalakshmi.

Originally, Nagalakshmi executed a settlement deed in favour of her son Kesavan with a fond hope that he and her daughter-in-law will take care of her till her lifetime. But he failed to take care of her. Her daughter-in-law also neglected her after her son died. Therefore, she approached the RDO, Nagapattinam.

After recording her statement that she executed the deed out of love and affection and for the future of her son, and after considering the statements of Mala, the RDO cancelled the settlement deed. Challenging this, Mala filed a petition and it was dismissed. Hence, she filed the present appeal.

The bench said section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was designed to protect senior citizens in situations, where they transfer their property, either through a gift or settlement, with the expectation that the transferee will provide for their basic amenities. If the transferee fails to meet these obligations, the senior citizen has the option to seek a declaration from the Tribunal to void the transfer, the bench added.

The Act acknowledges that property transfers from senior citizens, especially to children or close relatives, were often motivated by love and affection. The senior citizen's decision to transfer property was not merely a legal act but one made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. This love and affection become implied condition in the transaction, even if the transfer document itself does not explicitly state it.

If the transferee does not provide the promised care, the senior citizen can invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled, the bench added.

The court futher said the facts established in the present case before the RDO under the Senior Citizens Act reveal that the aged woman, during the relevant point of time, was 87 years old and she was totally neglected by her daughter-in-law.

The bench said the judgments analysed in its order amplify the legislative intention of the Parliament, indicating that an implied condition was sufficient, and factual inferences can be drawn based on the nature of the Settlement or Gift Deed executed. The circumstances under which the property was transferred were also to be taken into consideration. Thus, the implied condition would be sufficient for compliance with the condition stipulated under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, empowering the competent authority to annul the Settlement or Gift Deed in such circumstances, the bench added.

The bench said the legal position, in the context of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, makes it clear that the 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 was 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 was liable to be annulled, the bench added.

The bench said in the present case, the senior citizen, both in her complaint and before the RDO, categorically deposed that she was completely neglected by her son during his lifetime and by her daughter-in-law.

The senior citizen has three daughters, but she executed the settlement deed in favour of her only son, denying equal property rights to her daughters. Therefore, it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughter-in-law would take care of her till her lifetime.

Such a condition being implied under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the decision of the competent authority annulling the Settlement Deed was in consonance with the spirit and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act, the bench added.