The court affirmed that conditions for maintaining senior citizens in settlement deeds need not be explicit to be enforceable, emphasizing a liberal interpretation aligned with legislative intent.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order, dated

03.11.2023 passed by the second respondent which stands confirmed by the first respondent vide order, dated 08.02.2024 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the settlement deed in favour of the third respondent, dated 29.01.2007 and settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent, dated 16.04.2010 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Karur.

2. By the first mentioned order, the request of the petitioner for cancellation of the settlement deeds, dated 21.09.2007 and 16.04.2010 has been rejected on the ground that they are not conditional settlement. By the second mentioned order, the first respondent confirmed the above view.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The respondents 3 and 4 are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of the third respondent on 21.09.2007 and the third respondent in turn has settled the property in favour of the fourth respondent (wife) on 16.04.2010. The law on the subject has now attained clarity in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2, wherein, it has been held as under:

18. Keeping in mind the beneficial intention of the statute and the above expositions, we now proceed to consider the issue at hand.

19. Section 23 of the Act reads:

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.—

(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.

20. In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr. 10, this Court refused to grant the benefit of Section 23 in the absence of an averment that the transfer in question was subject to a condition for maintenance of the parents. It was observed:

“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub- section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied)

21. Furthermore, in Sudesh (supra) for attracting the application of Section 23 (1), the following essentials were expounded:

(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) The transferee refuses or fails