URMILA DIXIT vs SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT, 2025
Case Title and Citation: URMILA DIXIT V. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT 2025 INSC 20 (Dated: 2 January 2025)
Factual Background
The Appellant (mother) executed a Gift Deed transferring property she had acquired in 1968 to her son (the Respondent) on September 7, 2019. The deed stated that the son would maintain the mother. The deed was registered on September 9, 2019. On the same day, a promissory note was allegedly executed by the son, affirming that he would care for both parents until death, and failure to do so would allow the mother to reclaim the Gift Deed. On December 24, 2020, the mother filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”), alleging that the relationship had deteriorated and seeking cancellation of the deed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate granted the application and voided the deed. This order was upheld by the Collector and subsequently affirmed by a Single-Judge Bench of the High Court. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later reversed these orders, holding the deed valid based on a strict interpretation that the Gift Deed itself lacked an explicit maintenance condition. The mother then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
- Whether property transferred by a senior citizen, subject to the condition of maintenance, can be reclaimed under Section 23 of the Act if the transferee fails to provide maintenance.
- Whether the authorities under Section 23 of the Act have the jurisdiction to mandate the eviction of the transferee and restore possession of the property to the concerned senior citizen.
Decision of the Supreme Court
A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment. The Court upheld the cancellation of the Gift Deed because the conditions of the gift were not met. The Court also affirmed that authorities exercising power under Section 23 of the Act possess the power to order the transfer of possession and eviction. The Court directed that possession of the premises be restored to the Appellant.
Reason for the decision
The Supreme Court provided the following rationale for its decision:
- Liberal Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation: The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to ensure effective welfare and maintenance for senior citizens. Consequently, it must be interpreted liberally with a purpose-oriented approach to advance the remedies it offers, resolving the social challenges faced by the elderly. The Act empowers senior citizens to promptly secure their rights when they transfer property subject to maintenance conditions.
- Fulfillment of Section 23 Requirements: The Court scrutinized both the Gift Deed and the subsequent Promissory Note. It found that the two necessary ingredients for applying Section 23 were satisfied: (a) the transfer was subject to the condition that the son would provide basic amenities and physical needs (evidenced in both documents), and (b) the son failed or refused to provide these needs.
- Power of Eviction: The Court affirmed that the Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, is competent to order eviction and grant possession of the property back to the senior citizen. This power is necessary to fulfill the Act’s purpose of providing speedy, simple, and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that the legislative intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act requires a liberal interpretation to protect the rights of the elderly. Since the son failed to comply with the maintenance conditions attached to the property transfer, the Gift Deed was rightly cancelled by the tribunals below. Furthermore, the authorities under Section 23 are fully empowered to order the eviction of the transferee and restore possession to the senior citizen.
