URMILA DIXIT v. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT
Citation: 2025 INSC 20 (2 January 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Chudalayil T. Ravikumar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Contents
Key Issues:
- Applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- Whether senior citizens can reclaim property transferred through a Gift Deed or other means if the transferee fails to provide care and maintenance.
- Authority of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 23:
- Whether the authorities under Section 23 of the Act can order eviction and grant possession of the property back to senior citizens.
Factual Background:
- Gift Deed and Promissory Note:
- On 7 September 2019, the appellant (mother) executed a Gift Deed transferring her property to her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit, with the condition that he would care for her. This was registered on 9 September 2019.
- On the same day, the son signed a Vachan Patra (Promissory Note), promising to care for his parents and stating that, if he failed to do so, the mother would be entitled to revoke the Gift Deed.
- Alleged Breach:
- The mother claimed that the son failed to maintain her, attacked her, and attempted to further transfer the property. She filed an application under Section 23 of the Act on 24 December 2020, seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed.
Lower Court Proceedings:
- Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM): Allowed the mother’s application, declaring the Gift Deed null and void.
- Collector, District Chhatarpur: On 25 April 2022, dismissed the son’s appeal and upheld the SDM’s decision.
- High Court – Single Judge Bench: Rejected the son’s writ petition and upheld the previous orders.
- High Court – Division Bench: Reversed the Single Judge’s order, upheld the validity of the Gift Deed, and ruled in favor of the son.
- Supreme Court Appeal: The mother filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench’s decision.
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, overturned the Division Bench’s ruling and upheld the decisions of the SDM, Collector, and Single Judge. The Court canceled the Gift Deed and granted possession of the property back to the mother.
Reasons for the Supreme Court’s Decision:
1. Liberal Interpretation of the Act:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is beneficial legislation aimed at protecting senior citizens’ rights.
- Citing K. H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob (2019 INSC 1100), the Court held that beneficial statutes should be interpreted with a purpose-oriented approach to resolve the problems they are designed to address.
- The Court noted that the Preamble and Statement of Object and Reasons of the Act reflect the intent to ensure the welfare of senior citizens, a constitutional obligation under Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
2. Application of Section 23 of the Act:
- The Court evaluated the Gift Deed and Promissory Note, ruling that both documents imposed a condition of maintenance on the son, which he failed to honor.
- Referring to Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022 INSC 1257), the Court identified the two necessary ingredients for applying Section 23:
- A condition of maintenance and basic needs must be attached to the transfer.
- The transferee must have failed to fulfill those obligations.
Both conditions were met in the present case.
3. Powers of Authorities under Section 23:
- The Supreme Court affirmed that authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 have the power to order eviction and grant possession of the property back to senior citizens.
- It emphasized the Act’s goal of providing speedy, simple, and inexpensive remedies to protect elderly parents from neglect.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision and canceled the Gift Deed due to the son’s failure to fulfill his duty to care for his mother. It also ruled that the authorities had the jurisdiction to order possession to be restored to the mother.
Click here to read the Judgement
