2023 Supreme(Mad) 2792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Mohamed Dayan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tiruppur & Others – Respondents
WP No. 28190 of 2022 & WMP No. 27489 of 2022
Decided On : 08-09-2023

The love and affection between the parent and the child is an implied condition in the Settlement Deed and any violation of this condition would amount to fraud, coercion or undue influence, thus attracting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - SETTLEMENT DEED - CANCELLATION - CONDITIONS - IMPLIED CONDITION - LOVE AND AFFECTION - MAINTENANCE OF SENIOR CITIZEN - SECTION 23(1) - INTERPRETATION - PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE ACT - PROTECTION OF LIFE, SECURITY AND DIGNITY OF SENIOR CITIZENS - HUMAN CONDUCT - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - SENIOR CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO LEAD A NORMAL LIFE - MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION OF CHILDREN - SCOPE OF SECTION 23 - VOID TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - DEEMING CLAUSE - FRAUD, COERCION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE - MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION - EVICTION OF CHILD OR RELATIVE - MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF SENIOR CITIZEN.

Fact of the Case:

The fourth respondent, who is the mother of the writ petitioner, filed a petition before the second respondent on 08.07.2022 stating that the petitioner is her elder son and she had got two daughters and younger son. Her husband Mr.Batcha is living with bad health condition. The writ petitioner is living separately after his marriage and her younger son is living away from them due to misunderstanding between the brothers. The husband of the fourth respondent had closed his Garments business during the year 2015 due to business loss. Since her younger son went away, both the fourth respondent and her husband, are living separately. The writ petitioner is now running a Garment Company of his own. The father of the writ petitioner purchased the subject property out of his own self earnings, gold jewels and savings by way of Sale Deed dated 14.08.2003 registered as Document No.4618 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thiruppur. When the fourth respondent decided to partition the subject property among her sons, since her younger son is not having any job to maintain her and her husband and at that time, the petitioner expressed his willingness to purchase the said property and undertake to settle the share amounts to the heirs, within six months. The writ petitioner has given further undertaking that he will take care of his parents and upon believing the words of the petitioner, the fourth respondent had executed the Settlement Deed dated 20.10.2020 registered as Document No.8690 of 2020. No doubt, the writ petitioner is living in the Ground Floor of the property and the fourth respondent and her husband, are living in the First Floor of the property. After executing the Settlement Deed in favour of the writ petitioner, the petitioner had not maintained the fourth respondent and her husband properly and had not given them the medical treatment as well other basic needs. The fourth respondent has affected by Diabetics, Blood Pressure and other ailments and further suffering on account of old-age. The basic needs have been fulfilled by their daughters. When the fourth respondent was taken treatment in the Hospital six months back, the petitioner refused to take care of his father and at that time, the fourth respondent was in a critical condition, and she was given treatment at the Hospital by her daughter Tmt.Reshma. The fourth respondent had asked the petitioner to pay the amount to the other sharers as undertook by him at the time of execution of the Settlement Deed, otherwise to give back the property again to her, enabling her to partition the property and give the due share to all her children. But, the writ petitioner refused to do so and treated his parents indiscriminately and asked them to go out from the home. The fourth respondent in her petition had stated that the petitioner is now threatening her to vacate the house and when she vacated the house, the petitioner has disconnected water, electricity connection to the first floor portion and thereby made the fourth respondent and her husband to suffer more. The fourth respondent had stated for about three months medical expenditures crossed lakh of rupees and now the fourth respondent and her aged husband, are not in a position to maintain themselves and in a state of struggle to live. Under those circumstances, the fourth respondent had stated that the petitioner had obtained the property in his favour and after getting settlement in his name, the writ petitioner refused to maintain the fourth respondent and her husband, as assured by him and asking them to vacate the house also and thereby put the fourth respondent and her husband under trouble from leading peaceful life at their old-age. Thus the fourth respondent filed a petition before the second respondent to cancel the Settlement Deed executed in favour of her elder son-writ petitioner and make a way to live at their old-age as per the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', in short].

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Settlement Deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was rightly cancelled by the second respondent as the petitioner had failed to maintain his parents and provide them with the basic amenities and physical needs as required under the Act. The Court further held that the love and affection between the parent and the child is an implied condition in the Settlement Deed and any violation of this condition would amount to fraud, coercion or undue influence, thus attracting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Settlement Deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the petitioner was obligated to maintain his parents and provide them with the basic amenities and physical needs as required under the Act. 3. Whether the second respondent was justified in cancelling the Settlement Deed based on the complaint filed by the fourth respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose and object of the Act is to protect the life, security and dignity of senior citizens and to ensure that they are able to lead a normal life. 2. The obligation of children to maintain their parents extends to the needs of such parents so that they may lead a normal life, which includes providing them with food, shelter, medical assistance and treatment, and other basic amenities and physical needs. 3. Section 23(1) of the Act provides that where a senior citizen has transferred property to another person subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and needs, the transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence and shall be declared void at the option of the transferor. 4. The love and affection between the parent and the child is an implied condition in the Settlement Deed and any violation of this condition would amount to fraud, coercion or undue influence, thus attracting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent cancelling the Settlement Deed executed in his favour. The Court held that the Settlement Deed was rightly cancelled as the petitioner had failed to maintain his parents and provide them with the basic amenities and physical needs as required under the Act.