Senior Citizens Act Not Retrospective, Applies Only To Post-2007 Property Transfers: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act. The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective. “From the law enunciated in the decisions, referred supra, it is luculent that the Act shall be applicable only to transfer of property after the commencement of the Act and it cannot be given retrospective effect,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal against the order of a single judge, by which the single judge had upheld the cancellation of settlement deed executed by a father in favour of his son. Against this order, the son had filed the present appeal. The father, MS Manikavasagam, executed a settlement deed dated June 23, 2004, in favour of his son MM Ramesh. The son paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to his brother towards relinquishment of their rights as per the instructions of the father. However, all of a sudden, the son received a summons from the civil court in a suit filed by the father in 2016 seeking to declare the settlement deed as null and void and to declare the revocation of the settlement deed as valid. The suit was dismissed, and the order was upheld on appeal. Meanwhile, the father also filed a complaint with the Revenue Divisional Officer on October 21, 2019, which was dismissed. Though an appeal was preferred by the father, the District Collector dismissed the appeal. Against this, the father filed a writ petition in which the single judge upheld the cancellation of sale deed and direction the son to handover the vacant possession of the subject property to the father. The son argued that the Senior Citizens Act came into force only on September 29, 2008 while the settlement deed was executed in the year 2004. It was thus argued that the complaint before the statutory authority was not maintainable and the single judge did not consider the same. The son also submitted that the father was receiving a sum of Rs 40,000 towards monthly pension and had never approached the son seeking maintenance or shelter but all of a sudden sought to cancel the settlement deed with the sole intention of getting the possession of property under the settlement deed. In the present case, the court noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the father is receiving a family pension and civil cases filed by him were also dismissed. The court also noted that the RDO had noted that the father was entitled to receive maintenance from all his other four children even if the petitioner son had not maintained him. The court noted that the settlement deed was executed by the father with love and affection and as future security to the son. The court also noted that the children owed an obligation to maintain the parents and such obligation was statutory and not only subject to possession of property. Thus, even though the court was inclined to interfere with the order of single judge and set aside the cancellation, the court directed that if the father approached the son seeking residential accommodation, the son should provide accommodation of one room to the father. The court thus set aside the order of the single judge and modified the order of the District Collector. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Anandakumar for M/s. Thamizharasi Law Firm Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Dhayanand, Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127 Case No: W.A.No.2101 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Senior Citizens Act Not Retrospective, Applies Only To Post-2007 Property Transfers: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags