To invoke Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a settlement deed must explicitly condition that the transferee provides basic amenities and needs to the transferor.

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 19.07.2022, confirming the order passed by the second respondent on 21.04.2022 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. The third respondent in the writ petition, who is the sister of the writ petitioner, had purchased the property in dispute in her name on 18.09.2002. She had executed a settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner under registered document on 17.10.2014 in document No.2879/2014. The third respondent has preferred a complaint to the first respondent on 06.09.2021 for cancellation of the settlement deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent, by his order dated 21.04.2022 had cancelled the said documents invoking Section 23 (1) of the said Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent has chosen to concur with the findings of the second respondent and has dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no clause in the settlement deed reserving the right to cancel or revoke the deed of settlement. No condition was imposed in the settlement deed that the petitioner should take care of her sister. In such circumstances, the third respondent does not have any power or authority to approach the respondents

1 and 2 invoking Section 23 of the Act.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 20 reported in (Urmila Dixit Vs.Sunil Sharan Dixit and others) and Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3582 of 2024, dated 06.03.2025 between Mala Vs.District Arbitrator and five others, in support of his contentions.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The third respondent has executed a settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 17.10.2014. A perusal of the said documents reveal that in Page No.5 of the document it has been specifically recited that the third respondent does not reserve any right to revoke or cancel the said documents.

7. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 (Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another) in paragraph No.

14 it is held as follows:

14. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: (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 to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

8. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787 (Urmila Dixit Vs.Sunil Sharan Dixit and others) in paragraph No.

21 it is held as follows:

21. Furthermore, in Sudesh 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 physi