SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 5

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
Urmila Dixit – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Sharan Dixit – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. S K Giri, Adv. Mrs. Heena, Adv. Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR

Judgement Key Points

No, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the tribunal's jurisdiction to declare a property transfer void (and order possession restored) hinges on two strict essentials: (1) the transfer was made subject to an explicit condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (2) the transferee refused or failed to provide them. (!) (!) (!) If children can establish—through the transfer document itself or contemporaneous evidence—that no such condition was imposed (e.g., they were never asked or obligated to maintain), this first essential fails, barring relief under the provision. (!) (!) (!) Similarly, proof that the senior citizen's basic needs are already met (no refusal or failure) defeats the second essential, preventing the transfer from being deemed void. (!) (!)

While the Act is beneficial legislation warranting purposive interpretation to protect senior citizens' rights via speedy remedies, (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) tribunals cannot invoke Section 23 absent these preconditions, as doing so would exceed statutory limits. (!) (!) Eviction or possession orders are permissible only if tied to enforcing a valid Section 23 claim and necessary for the senior citizen's protection—not as standalone maintenance enforcement. (!) Thus, such proof could render eviction an overreach, justifying reversal on appeal. (!) (!)


JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1085 of 2022, whereby the judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 11796 of 2022 was set aside.

2. The Single Judge of the High Court had, in turn, affirmed the judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur in Case No. 91/Appeal/2021-22 and the judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Chairman, Chhatarpur in Case No. 98/B-121/2021-22, allowing the application filed by the Appellant herein under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “the Act”) seeking setting aside of Gift Deed dated 09.09.2019.

Factual Matrix

3. The Appellant herein is the mother of the Respondent (son). The subject property was purchased by her on 23.01.1968. On 07.09.2019, the Appellant executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Respondent wherein it has been stated that the donee (Respondent) maintains the donor and makes provision for everything. This deed ca

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top