Condition To Provide Basic Amenities Need Not Be Explicit To Declare A Deed Void Under MWPSC Act: MHC

In S. Mala Vs District Arbitrator & Ors., [W.A. No. 3582 of 2024], the Madras High Court recently held that to invoke the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking declaration of a settlement deed void, the condition specified in Section 23 of Act that ‘the transfer must stipulate the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor’ need not be explicit and that necessary inference can be drawn based on facts and circumstances of each case.

CASE SUMMARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- The third Respondent (deceased) approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) seeking cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of her only son (now deceased) by invoking provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on the ground that her son and daughter – in – law (Appellant in the W.A) did not take care of her.

- The third Respondent deposed before the RDO that her son and daughter – in – law did not take care of her after settling the property.

- The Appellant contested the application before the RDO by writing letters and filing documents but did not appear in person and depose any evidence.

- RDO allowed the application and cancelled the settlement deed.

- Writ Petition filed challenging the RDO’s order was dismissed. Aggrieved, the judgment in writ petition was challenged before the division bench on writ appeal.

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:

- Section 23 of the Act of 2007 enables senior citizens to approach the Tribunal to declare any transfer of property, by way of gift or otherwise, as void on certain conditions. It stipulates that such transfer must be with the condition that: (a) the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs.

- The settlement deed executed by the third Respondent does not stipulate any such condition. Therefore, the provisions of the MWPS Act, 2007 could not be invoked to cancel the settlement deed. The writ Court did not consider this on merits.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:

- The settlement deed specifies that the property is settled out of love and affection and for the betterment of the son. Before the RDO, the third Respondent deposed that her son and daughter – in – law did not take care of her. Based on the enquiry, the RDO concluded that the settlement deed is liable to be cancelled. The decision is reasoned and therefore does not require interference.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

Writ Appeal was dismissed.

REASONS:

- MWPS Act, 2007 is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, the condition stipulated in Section 23 of the Act cannot be given restrictive interpretation to thwart the legislative intent;

- If two interpretations of a provision are possible, one that serves the purpose of the provision should be given effect. Therefore, Section 23 should be given a much wider interpretation to mean that the condition that the transferee shall provide for basic amenities to the transferor can be implied and need not be explicit;

- In Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., [2025 SCC Online SS 2] the Supreme Court held that Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is not a standalone provision and therefore cannot be read in isolation. The Court held that if a gift deed does not explicitly mention maintenance, it should be interpreted pragmatically to prevent neglect of the elderly.  

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT: 06.03.2025

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr. K. SUBRAMANIAN for Mr. S. Punniyakoti;

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT (State): Mrs. E. RANGANAYAKI, Additional Government Pleader.

[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]