CASE COMMENT:  URMILA DIXIT Vs SUNIL DIXIT

URMILA DIXIT Vs SUNIL DIXIT

Appellant: Urmila Dixit 

Respondent: Sunil Dixit

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgement: 02 January 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Chudalayil T. Ravikumar

Citation: 10927 of 2024

INTRODUCTION

The case revolves around Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, regarding the cancellation of a gift deed. The Appellant is the mother who have  filed an application seeking to set aside the gift deed executed in favour of the Respondent who is her son, complaining that he failed to maintain her as required under the Act.

FACTS  

The facts of the case are as follows:

1. A gift deed was executed by the mother in favor of her son on 7^th September, 2019, for transferring the property she had originally purchased on 23^rd January, 1968.
2. The gift deed mentioned that the son shall be maintain taking care of his mother, which was ultimately registered on 9^th September,2019.
3. A vachan patra (promissory note) was executed by the son on the very same date, which explicitly mentioned that the son would take care of both his mother and father for the rest of his lives. On failing of which, the mother was entitled to reclaim the gifted property. 

    After some time of execution of this deed subsequent events followed which led to dispute:

4. The mother filed a complaint on 24^th December 2020 under section 23 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate complaining about attacks by the son for further transfer of the property and expressed her desire to cancel the deed as there was no bond of love and affection between the parties. The application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the deed was declared as null and void (not valid in law). 
5. The son applied for an appeal which was dismissed by the collector on 25 April 2022. 
6. The son filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
7. A single judge bench of High Court upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the writ petition. 
8. After this dismissal a writ appeal was filed by the son under High Court, a division -Bench was formed which reversed the decision of the single bench and held the deed as valid.  
9. Then the mother filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES RAISED 

1. Can a property that is transferred as a Gift or any other medium by senior citizen can be claimed back under section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2. Can the authorities under section 23 order eviction and deliver possession to the concerned senior citizen?
3. Does conditional gift deed automatically become void of the transferee violates the condition?

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1. The Supreme Court in a division bench upheld that decision of the single judge bench of the High Court and cancelled the gift deed as the conditions of the gift or the promise was not fulfilled.
2. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the authorities can also order transfer of possession. 

CONTENTION 

• Appellant’s Argument: The Appellant contended that the Gift Deed was executed with the knowledge and understanding that the Respondent would maintain and care her. She argued that as the Respondent failed to fulfil this obligation and even mistreated the appellant and her husband, the Gift Deed should be revoked under Section 23 of the Act.
• Respondent’s Argument: The Respondent claimed that the Gift Deed did not mentioned about any condition regarding maintenance. He also argued that the promissory note was fabricated and should not be considered in determining his obligations.

RATIONALE

Legal Issues Considered: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was correct in its decision of setting aside the Tribunal’s decision and can the Gift Deed be revoked under Section 23 of the Act. To answer this, the Court analysed the interpretation of beneficial legislation.

Principles of Beneficial Legislation Interpretation

1. Liberal and Purpose-Oriented Approach – The Acts must be interpreted in such a way that helps in achieving the purpose of the legislature in enacting the law, as here the legislature drafted this law for the welfare and to protect the senior citizens. The Court referred to Brahmpal v. National Insurance Company and K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob, which emphasized a liberal interpretation of laws to protect the vulnerable groups.
2. Legislative Intent – The Court interpreted that the Acts main objective is to protect senior citizens from being neglected and from financial insecurity.
3. Precedents on Maintenance and Welfare – The Court cited Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, emphasizing that maintenance of parents is a social obligation under constitutional principles of social justice.
4. Judicial Recognition of Senior Citizens’ Rights – The Court referred to Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, which recognized the need to enforce the rights of elderly citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

DEFECTS OF LAW 

1. Narrow Interpretation by the Division Bench: The Division Bench’s narrow interpretation of Section 23 failed to view for the Act’s broader objectives, focusing only on the explicit conditions within the Gift Deed by ignoring the supporting evidence such as the promissory note.
2. Limited Tribunal Powers: The interpretation of the Tribunal didn’t have the power to revoke the Gift Deed where maintenance conditions were not explicitly written which contradicted the very purpose of the Act.
3. Need for Clarification on Implied Conditions: The Court noted that while a direct clause in the Gift Deed is needed, the overall circumstances and supporting documents should be considered while determining the intent behind a transfer.

Application of Section 23 of the Act Section 23 says that if a senior citizen transfers property on the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, but the transferee fails to do so, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made under fraud, coercion, or undue influence and can be declared void.

In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, the Court held that:

• A transfer under Section 23 must be conditional upon the transferee providing maintenance.
• There must be evidence of failure to fulfil this obligation.
• Transfers made purely out of love and affection without explicit conditions do not fall under Section 23.

INFERENCE

1.  Existence of Maintenance Conditions – The Supreme Court found that both the Gift Deed and the promissory note were executed simultaneously, supporting the claim that maintenance was a condition of the transfer; which depicts the Respondent’s obligation to maintain the Appellant; 
2. Breach of Obligation – The Appellant’s complaint of mistreatment and neglect were considered. Given the breakdown of relations and non-fulfilment of maintenance obligations, the conditions under Sudesh Chhikara were met.
3. Tribunal’s Competency to Order Eviction – The Court clarified that tribunals under the Act can order eviction to protect senior citizens, as recognized in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.
4. Section 23’s Role in the Act – The Supreme Court rejected the Division Bench’s narrow interpretation of Section 23 as a standalone provision, affirming that it is integral to the Act’s objective of senior citizen welfare.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has dismissed the judgement of the division bench and upheld the judgement of the tribunal; ruled in favour of the appellant and declared the gift deed as null and void. The respondent was order to restore the possession of the appellant. 

References:

1. https://www.sci.gov.in/landmark-judgment-summaries visited on 22. 03.2025
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194091211/ visited on 22.03.2025

_ BY Sudeshna Mondal

UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD