Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Sudesh Chhikara – Appellant
Versus
Ramti Devi & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23 – Invalidation of release-deed by Maintenance Tribunal – 2007 Act has been enacted for the purposes of making effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under Constitution of India – 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 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 – When it is alleged that conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before Tribunal – No such finding has been recorded in order passed by Maintenance Tribunal – Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to transferor-senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23 – Impugned order passed by Maintenance Tribunal as well as order passed by High Court set aside and petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of 2007 Act dismissed. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises out of a petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Findings of Court:
Order of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be sustained as the twin conditions incorporated in sub-Section (1) of Section 23 were not satisfied. Unfortunately, the High Court has not adverted to the merits of case at all.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Tribunal’s power under Section 23 to declare a transfer void arises when a senior citizen transfers property subject to a condition of providing basic amenities and needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to provide them. (!) - For Section 23(1) to apply, two conditions must be established: (a) the transfer was made subject to a condition of providing basic amenities and basic physical needs; (b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and needs. (!) (!) - The judgment holds that if these twin conditions are not pleaded or proven, the transfer cannot be declared void under Section 23(1), and the petition under Section 23 cannot be sustained. (!) (!) - It is not necessary that all transfers include a condition of care; many are made out of love or affection without any such expectation. (!) - The appellate court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal’s order and dismissed the Section 23 petition where the twin conditions were not established. (!) - The petition and associated decrees in prior civil suits found certain release deeds void, but the Section 23 relief requires specific conditions to be pleaded and proven; mere existence of releases voided in civil suits is not enough for Section 23 relief. (!) (!) - The maintenance and welfare framework intends to protect senior citizens, but Section 23’s effectiveness depends on proper factual pleadings and evidence of the required conditions. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL DETAILS
1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the 2007 Act’).
2. Respondent no.1 acquired a land bearing Khewat no.87, Khatoni no.124, Khasra no.315 measuring 1 bigha 18 biswa. She also acquired a land bearing Khewat No.247, Khasra No.269 (4 bighas 0 biswa) totally measuring 5 bighas and 3 biswa in Village Basai, Tehsil and District Gurugram, Haryana. She claimed that the acquisition was by way of inheritance from her father. The family tree of the parties is as under :
| Ramti Devi W/o. Late Sukh Lal (Respondent no.1) | ||
| Smt. Suresh (dead) (daughter) | Smt. Sudesh (daughter) Appellant | Sunder (son) |
| Jasdeep (Respondent no.2) | Manish | |
3. Respondent no.1 executed a release deed in respect of a part of the subject property in favour of her daughters (the appellant and second respondent’s mother). The said release deed (no.18151) was executed on 14th November 2008 and was duly registered. As per the said release deed, the daughters became the owners of one-third share each in the property subject matter of the release deed. It is also brought on record that on 24th March 2009, the respondent no.1 executed another release deed (no.25502) in respect of one-fourth share in the lands bearing Khasra No.269. The said release deed was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of her son Sunder. Another release deed (no.25504) was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of her son Sunder on the same day in respect of one-half share in the lands bearing Khasra No.315, Khasra No.314 and Khasra No.341. Both the release deeds were registered. Respondent no.1, the appellant and the second respondent’s mother filed Civil Suit no.175 of 2010 in the Civil Court essentially for challenging the release deed dated 24th March 2009 (no.25504). The Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 17th July 2015 declared the release deed dated 24th March 2009 as null and void. The Civil Court held that the release deed shall not bind respondent no.1, the appellant and the mother of respondent no.2. Civil Suit no.234 of 2010 was filed by respondent no.1, the appellant and the second respondent’s mother for the same relief in respect of the other release deed (no.25502). A similar decree was passed in this suit on 19th March 2015.
4. According to the case of respondent no.1, her son Sunder and grandson Manish preferred appeals against the aforesaid decrees. During the pendency of the appeals, they sold the property subject matter of the release deeds dated 24th March 2009 to a third party.
5. Respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 23 of the 2007 Act before the Maintenance Tribunal (Sub-Divisional Magistrate). In the petition, respondent no.1 stated that her relationship with her son and daughters was strained and therefore, her son and daughters were not maintaining her. The contention of respondent no.1 was that the release deed executed by her in favour of her two daughters on 14th November 2008 was illegal and void. Accordingly, a prayer was made in the petition under Section 23 for cancellation of the said release deed dated 14th November 2008.
6. The petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 was contested by the appellant. The Maintenance Tribunal finally decided the petition by judgment and order dated 22nd May 2018. It was held that the release deed dated 14th November 2008 was null and void. The Maintenance Tribunal recorded a finding that respondent no.1’s children were not willing to take her care.
7. The present appellant along with respondent no.2 challenged the order of the Maintenance Tribunal by way of a writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal has been confirmed.
SUBMISSIONS
8. The learned counsel ap
Invalidation of release-deed by Maintenance Tribunal – 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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
