The statutory conditions under Section 23 of the Act do not require explicit inclusion in the gift deed, and forums must allow evidence to support claims regarding maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present challenge has been preferred by the father of the opposite party against an order whereby the Appellate Forum under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the 2007 Act”) dismissed an appeal preferred against an order of the First Forum whereby the First Forum, that is, the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, instead of cancelling the gift deed purportedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party, granted a meagre amount of maintenance to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the Appellate Tribunal’s order nor the order of the Sub Divisional Officer are backed by reasons. Without granting any opportunity to adduce evidence or interpret the deed in appropriate manner, both the fora proceeded to decide the matter.

3. As such, the impugned orders, being not sustainable in law and devoid of reasons, ought to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the language of Section 23 of the 2007 Act in support of his contentions.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-son submits that the basic ingredients of Section 23 of the 2007 Act are missing from the pleadings, that is, the application made under the said provision by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer. Secondly, the deed itself does not contain any provision that it would be incumbent on the opposite party, as a pre-requisite of such transfer, to provide basic amenities to and meet the physical needs of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 as well as Naseem Kahnam and others v. Zaheda Begum (dead) by LRs. and others, reported at (2024) 7 SCC 245 in support of his propositions.

7. Upon going through the materials before the Court, it is seen that the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is palpably vitiated by lack of reasons.

8. In an utterly casual and cursory manner, the Appellate Tribunal simply observed that it had perused the “appeal petition” and relevant documents/gift deed carefully and was satisfied that the appeal did not meet the proviso of Section 23 of the 2007 Act.

9. The Sub Divisional Officer, by the order which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, instead of adverting to the basic ingredients of Section 23 of the 2007 Act at all, merely shirked his duty by granting maintenance of a meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month only to the petitioner from the month of October, 2023 instead of deciding the substantive prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of the gift deed executed by him in favour of the opposite party.

10. Thus, both the Appellate Tribunal and the Sub Divisional Officer palpably shirked their duty and refused to exercise their jurisdiction under the statute by passing cursory orders without adverting to the merits of the matter and/or granting opportunities to the parties to adduce appropriate evidence at all.

11. The premise of the arguments of the opposite party herein is that the ingredients of Section 23 were not disclosed in the gift deed itself. However, it is nowhere stipulated in Section 23 of the 2007 Act that the conditions precedent for cancellation of a gift deed must be contained in the concerned gift deed and the said deed alone.

12. Section 23 (1) provides that where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of the Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, “subject to the condition tha