A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. An interesting question of importance arises for consideration in this writ petition in the context of Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to for brevity, as 'the Senior Citizens Act, 2007'). Late Gopalakrishnan Nair was a wealthy businessman at Mumbai. He belonged to Kerala. Late Gopalakrishnan Nair approached the Maintenance Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act, 2007. His relief before the Tribunal inter alia was for declaration of settlement deed bearing No. 1297/2013 dtd.03/06/2013 of Bharanikkavu Sub Registry as null and void.

2. The settlement deed had been executed by the late Gopalakrishnan Nair in the name of the petitioners herein. The first petitioner herein is his niece and the fourth petitioner is the nephew of the late Gopalakrishnan Nair. The remaining petitioners are the children of the first petitioner.

3. The respondents 6 to 9 are the widow and children of late Gopalakrishnan Nair. It appears that late Gopalakrishnan Nair came down to Kerala to settle down here, after leaving his business and all immovable properties to be taken care of by his wife and children. While he was in Kerala, he had a hope, he would be taken care of by the petitioners. Therefore, with the hope that they would take care of him, he had executed a settlement deed referred as above. In the settlement deed, it is stated that he is executing the deed, on account of love and affection as well on the ground that the petitioners were taking care of and maintaining Gopalakrishnan Nair in his old age. However, Ext. P1 Deed did not contain recitals providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to Gopalakrishnan Nair by the petitioners, as a condition for transfer.

4. The Tribunal revoked the Settlement Deed by finding that Settlement Deed is liable to be revoked under Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal also granted other reliefs based on the application of late Gopalakrishnan Nair. The Tribunal passed the order on 10/04/2015. Gopalakrishnan Nair passed away on 17/04/2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following grounds for challenge before this Court.

i. In the absence of any stipulation in the settlement deed, that petitioners shall provide basic physical needs to the late Gopalakrishnan Nair, document cannot be revoked under Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

ii. The late Gopalakrishnan Nair had executed a Will bequeathing the property, which was the subject-matter of Settlement Deed. Therefore, on his death the petitioners have become the full owners of the property and the order of the Tribunal has become inoperative.

6. The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has a pivotal role in Indian Societal frame work. The Act, in fact, comprehends a scheme of welfare provisions for senior citizens. The Act contemplates right of senior citizens beyond right of maintenance. The word "welfare" has a significant importance in the context. The welfare is defined under Section 2(k) as follows:

"2(k) "welfare" means provision for food, health care, recreation centres and other amenities necessary for the senior citizens."

Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 gives 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 above 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 and (b) such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs. Therefore, a deed can be declared as void on fulfilling the two conditions enumerated as above, declaring transfer as a fraud or coercion or under undue influence, as the case may be at the option of the transferor.

7. The question in this case is in the absence of specific recital as conditions referred as above in the Settlement D