New Delhi, Jan 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had held gift deed could not be invalidated based on children failing to care of their parents if such conditions were not explicitly stated in the deed.
A bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Justice Sanjay Karol on Thursday ordered that the possession of the property that was gifted to the son be transferred back to the mother.
The Court set aside the High Court order and quashed the Gift Deed Executed by the mother on September 07, 2019.
The Top Court ordered to restore the possession of the premises to the parents by February 28, 2025.
The Apex Court directed the Registry to communicate this judgment to the concerned authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who shall ensure compliance.
The SC ruling arose from a petition filed by a woman seeking to annul a gift deed executed in favour of her son, who had allegedly failed to care for her.
The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on October 31, 2022, which set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge of its High Court.
The Single Judge of the High Court had, in turn, affirmed the judgment dated April 25, 2022 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur in an Appeal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM)and Chairman, Chhatarpur on September 27, 2021.
The SDM had allowed the application filed by the Appellant under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking the setting aside of Gift Deed.
The gift deed, which was executed on September 9, 2019, included a promissory note where the son pledged to support his parents, failing which the gift deed could be revoked.
However, after a breakdown in their relationship, the woman sought legal recourse to reclaim her property.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s division bench had previously overturned orders from lower courts and the Single Judge, stating that the absence of a specific maintenance clause in the gift deed rendered it valid.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Act’s objective requires a liberal and purposive interpretation to protect the rights of elderly citizens.
The Court referenced prior rulings that underscore the need for beneficial legislation to be interpreted with a focus on the welfare of the intended beneficiaries. It reiterated that the Act’s purpose is to ensure senior citizens are not left destitute after transferring their property.
Highlighting the statutory provisions, the Court clarified that Section 23 of the Act allows for the revocation of property transfers if the transferee fails to fulfil the conditions of providing care, even when not expressly mentioned in the deed.
The Court reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the dignity and welfare of senior citizens, ensuring they are not subjected to neglect or coercion after transferring property to their children.
The mother purchased the property on January 23, 1968. On September 07, 2019, the Mother (Appellant) executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Son(Respondent) and it was stated that the donee (Respondent) maintains the donor and makes provision for everything.
This deed came to be registered on September 9, 2019.
Allegedly, on the same day, a vachan patra promissory note was executed by the son wherein it was stated that he would take care of the parents till the end of her life and if he did not do so, the Appellant would be at liberty to take back the Gift Deed.
The respondent alleged that this vachan patra was fabricated.
Thereafter, on December 24, 2020, the Appellant filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur, alleging that she and her husband were attacked by the respondent for further transfer of property and that the love and affection between the parties had completely ended.
She prayed for setting aside the Gift Deed in question.
A Writ Appeal was filed thereafter, assailing the order of the Single Judge.
The Division Bench of the High Court, while setting aside the judgments of the Single Judge, made
the following observations like Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision, and the function of the Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the gift deed or otherwise contains a clause providing for basic amenities and whether the transferee has refused or failed to provide them.
There is no other jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.
The High Court refused to accept the arguments relating to the affidavit and held that no condition was there in the gift deed executed on September 09, 2019 for maintenance of the transferor.
The High Court said, “If the intention of the parties was such, the gift deed should have had a clause to the same effect.”
The Supreme Court after hearing Ms. V. Mohana, senior counsel for the Appellant, and Ms. Madhavi Divan, senior counsel appearing for the Respondents said, “We have also perused the written submissions filed by both sides.
The issue arises of whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Tribunal, granting the benefit of Section 23 of the Act, to the Appellant?
The Bench emphasized the need to protect the interests of senior citizens, many of whom are ignored by their children and left to fend for themselves once they hand over property by executing a gift deed.
The Bench held that such deeds signed by parents could be quashed under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act if the children fail to take care of them.
The transfer of property would be declared null and void, the court said.
The bench said the Act is beneficial legislation meant to lend a helping hand to elders who are left alone due to the withering of the joint family system and that its provisions should be interpreted liberally, and not in the strict sense, to protect their rights.
It set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict which held that gift deeds cannot be quashed on grounds of not serving parents if such conditions were not expressly mentioned in the deed.
The Act emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the rights of senior citizens, ruling that gift deeds executed by parents can be invalidated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act if their children fail to care for them, even if such conditions are not explicitly mentioned in the deed, the Court said.
Highlighting the plight of many senior citizens who are abandoned by their children after transferring property through gift deeds, the Court held that such deeds can be quashed under the Act if the children neglect their duty to provide care. The property transfer, in such cases, would be deemed null and void.
The bench emphasized that the Act is a welfare-oriented legislation designed to assist elders in a society where the joint family system is declining.
The Court stressed that the provisions of the Act must be interpreted liberally to protect the rights of senior citizens.
