Failure To Provide Basic Needs To Parents Breaches Implied Condition Under Senior Citizens Act; Gift Deed Liable To Cancellation: Chhattisgarh HC

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas referred to Section 23 of the 2007 Act, which provides that where any senior citizen who has transferred by gift his property on the condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such transferee fails to provide the same, then the said transfer shall be deemed to have been made under fraud, coercion or undue influence and shall, at the option of the transferor, be declared void.

Examining the gift deed in question, the Single Judge observed that it demonstrated that it was initially executed out of sheer care and affection shown by petitioner 1 in favour of the respondents. However, after gauging the conduct of petitioner 1, the Single Judge observed that he had failed to discharge his obligation towards the respondents, and held,

“… it is quite vivid that though not explicit but implied condition of taking such care would continue throughout the life time of respondents No. 2 and 3 exists, thereby it needs not be expressed as written condition to declare the gift deed to be null and void by invoking provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007 in view of the fact that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial legislation and a strict view will defeat its aims and object. Therefore, it is an implicit condition attached to this transfer of property by way of gift which was not fulfilled by the transferee…”

Facts:

Initially, respondent 2 gifted his house to petitioner 1, out of sheer affection and on the assurance that he would take care of them throughout their lives. In the same house, their daughter (petitioner 2) later began residing, after which respondents alleged harassment, denial of food/water, locking of essential facilities, threat to kill and disconnection from electricity. They also claimed that petitioner 1 had misused their ATM and withdrew 30 lakh rupees from their account. They were also stated to be forced to reside in the first floor of the house, which was cumbersome for them considering they had to regularly climb stairs.

Alleging neglect and cruelty, respondents sought cancellation of the deed under the 2007 Act, and prayed for the house to be restored to them. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the application and declared the deed null and void. Upon appeal by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority dismissed the same and recorded a finding that the deed was executed by respondents looking at the affectionate conduct of petitioner 1, with an expectation that such conduct would continue in future.

In their writ petition challenging orders of the Appellate Tribunal and Maintenance Tribunal, petitioners contended that the gift deed was executed voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, and also does not contain any condition obligating petitioner 1 to maintain the respondents. Further, petitioners argued that the deed was unconditional, and only a conditional deal can be revoked under Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act. They also argued that a transfer must be expressly conditional if the donor intends the donee to maintain him.

In contrast, the respondents argued that the impugned order was in consonance with principles of natural justice, and that existence of a condition for maintenance should not necessarily be reflected by an express recital or covenant in the deed. Lastly, they contended that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal, they were ousted from their house by the petitioners, forcing them to temporarily reside in an old-age home.

Rejecting the argument of the petitioners that the gift deed contained no express maintenance clause, the Court referred Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684], where the Supreme Court prescribed essentials to attract Section 23(1), namely- (1) the transfer must have been made on the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities physical needs to the transferor; and, (2) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities.

Noting that the present case satisfies the twin-conditions, the Court held,

"Hence, it is a transfer on account of undue influence which becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. As such, the orders passed by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not liable to be interfered by this Court.”

Thus, the Court noted that the petitioners were unable to point out any perversity and illegality with the impugned orders, and consequently dismissed the petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WPC No. 87 of 2025

Case Title: Ramkishna Pandey and Anr v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order