Love & Affection 'Implied Condition' When Senior Citizen Transfers Property, Doesn't Need Express Mention In Settlement Deed: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Senior Citizens Act, love and affection is an implied condition under Section 23(1) of the Act and it is not necessary to have an explicit mention of the same in the settlement deed. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran noted that the Act was meant to safeguard the security and dignity of the senior citizen. The court noted that when a senior citizen made a transfer of property, it was not just a legal act but an act made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. Thus, the court noted that when the transferee did not provide the promised care, the senior citizen could invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled. “The law does not require an express condition in the document for maintenance. Instead, it recognizes that love and affection serve as the consideration for the transfer and that this implicit condition is enough to invoke the provision in case of neglect. The Tribunal, in such instances, is empowered to declare the deed null and void, based on the violation of this implied condition. The Act's overarching goal is to safeguard the security and dignity of senior citizens. In cases where familial conduct fails to live up to expectations, and the senior citizen's welfare is not protected, Section 23(1) ensures that the senior citizen can seek legal relief,” the court said. The court held that the Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation was to be interpreted liberally to ensure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of senior citizens are effectively protected. The court added that when two or more views were possible, it was the duty of the court to interpret the provision to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning. The court emphasised that if the usual meaning of the language in the Act does not capture the legislature's objective, a broader interpretation may be applied, provided the words support the meaning. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Mala against an order of the single judge upholding the setting aside of the settlement deed. Mala's mother-in-law Nagalakshmi had settled the property in favour of her only son out of love and affection and for his better future. However, since the daughter-in-law, the petitioner in the present case, failed to take care of her, she filed an application to cancel the Settlement Deed executed in favour of her son. The mother-in-law deposed before the Revenue Divisional Officer that she was neglected though she had settled the property out of love and affection and with the fond hope that she will be taken care of by the son and the daughter-in-law. Thus, the RDO allowed her application and cancelled the settlement deed. When this order was challenged before the single judge, the judge dismissed the plea. On appeal, it was argued that there was no express condition in the settlement deed as mandated under Section 23(1) of the Act. It was argued that the provision expressly says that the deed should mention a condition to maintain the senior citizen. It was thus argued that in the absence of a specific condition, the cancellation was in violation of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen Act. On the side of the respondents, it was argued that the Settlement Deed expressly stated that it was executed out of love and affection and had deposed before the Revenue Divisional Officer that she was neglected. Thus, it was argued that the condition under Section 23(1) of the Act was complied with. The court noted that the expression in the settlement deed would be sufficient to satisfy the condition under the Act. Thus, the court held that the implied condition was sufficient to empower the competent authority to annul the Settlement or Gift deed. Thus, finding that there was no acceptable ground for assailing the writ court's order, the court dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Subramanian For Mr. S. Punniyakotti Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs. E. Ranganayaki Additional Government Pleader Case Title: S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 Case No: W.A.No.3582 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Love & Affection 'Implied Condition' When Senior Citizen Transfers Property, Doesn't Need Express Mention In Settlement Deed: Madras HC

Upasana Sajeev

Tags