Delhi High Court
Tajinder Singh Bakshi & Anr vs Daljit Kaur & Ors on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on: 14.08.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10854/2023, and CM APPLs.42053/2023, 42055/2023
TAJINDER SINGH BAKSHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate.
versus
DALJIT KAUR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Banther, Advocate for
R-1.
Mr. Akil Rataeeya, Ms. Aroma
Rataeeya, Mr. Harsh Gulia,
Mr. Sunny Dagar, Mr. Armaan
Rataeeya and Mr. Aditya Vats,
Advocates.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
CAV 416/2023
1. Leaned counsel for the respondent no.1 has already entered
appearance.
2. Accordingly, the caveat stands discharged.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing an
order dated 26.07.2023 (hereinafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the
District Magistrate West, Government of NCT Delhi in Appeal No.
(678)/DCW/2022, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 1 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (hereinafter ‘the Senior Citizens Act‘) assailing order dated
20.12.2019 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act, has been allowed and directions have been issued to the
Sub-Registrar IIB, Janakpuri, to cancel the registration of the gift deed dated
05.05.2015 bearing Registration No. 5955 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 562 on
page no. 1 to 8, by which, four floors in the property bearing no. WZ-406/3
Plot No. 49 Janak Park Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi (hereinafter
‘the subject property’) were gifted in favour of the petitioner no.2 by
respondent no.1.
4. The respondent no.1 is a senior citizen aged around 88 years and has
four children – three daughters (not party/ies to the present proceedings) and
a son (petitioner no.1). The petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1 /
daughter in law of respondent no.1.
5. The exclusive title over the subject property was bequeathed upon the
respondent no.1 by way of a registered will executed in her favour by her
father who died on 29.06.1982. In 2012, a building was constructed on the
subject property comprising of 8 flats. Upon completion of construction of
the said building, 3 out of the 8 flats were transferred by the respondent no.1
in favour of the builder in lieu of the construction costs and the remaining 5
flats were retained by the respondent no.1.
6. On 05.05.2015, a gift deed came to be executed by the respondent
no.1 in favour of the petitioner no.2 with respect to 4 of the 5 remaining flats
at the subject property.
7. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a written complaint dated
06.05.2015 with the SHO Janakpuri alleging that the aforesaid gift deed had
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 2 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
been executed by pressurising the respondent no.1. (complaint appended to
the present petition as Annexure P5)
8. Subsequently, an application dated 03.06.2015 under Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act came to be filed by the respondent no.1 before the
Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated
05.05.2015.
9. Vide order dated 20.12.2019, the Maintenance Tribunal proceeded to
dismiss the aforesaid application filed under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act by observing as under –
“On the prayer of conciliation of above said gift deeds executed in
favour of the respondent no.2 on the ground of fraud and cheating, the
petitioner is failed to prove such conditions/facts mentioned in the
above said Gift Deeds. It is further observed that many cases have
already pending between the parties in the Civil Courts on the same
issues. Moreover, the petitioners are not willing to take any
maintenance allowance from the respondents. The Tribunal observed
that without any evidence, the Tribunal is unable to decide the ground
of fraud and cheating in the above said Gift Deeds.
After heard both the parties and considering all the facts, the
Tribunal feels it necessary to pass on Order as follows:
1. The Tribunal further directs Respondent No.1 & 2 not to take
any rent in lieu of resident in the said property till they are live.
2. The Tribunal further directed the concerned S.H.O., P. S. Janak
Puri to depute Beat Officer to visit the premises of the applicant
twice in a month to ensure the safety and security of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the complaint/case is disposed off.”
10. It appears that the aforesaid petition under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act came to be rejected by the Maintenance Tribunal on the basis
that the respondent no.1 / applicant was unable to prove that the conditions
attached to the transfer were mentioned in the gift deed in question. The
Maintenance Tribunal also seems to have taken into consideration the fact
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 3 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
that several proceedings are pending before civil court/s arising out of the
same controversy, and that the issue of fraud and cheating alleged to be
vitiating the gift deed in question could not be decided without any
evidence.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2019, an appeal dated
24.01.2020 was filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 16 of the Senior
Citizens Act before the District Magistrate West, Government of NCT Delhi
(hereinafter ‘the Appellate Authority’).
12. Vide impugned order dated 26.07.2023, the Appellate Authority
proceeded to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 20.12.2019
passed by the Maintenance Tribunal thereby directing for cancellation of the
gift deed dated 05.05.2015. The impugned order passed by the Appellate
Authority painstakingly analyses the facts and circumstances of the case and
arrives at the following conclusions –
(i) The respondent no.1 had intended to distribute the flats equally
amongst her four children inasmuch as she had gotten her three
daughters to purchase separate stamp papers for executing gift deeds
and had obtained appointments with the office of the Sub-Registrar
for 06.05.2015.
(ii) The fact that the respondent no.1 had planned to execute gift deed
with respect to one flat each in favour of her three daughters on
06.05.2015 and then suddenly a day prior i.e. 05.05.2015 transferred 4
flats in favour of the petitioner no.2, was found to be “suspicious”.
Since the registration of the gift deed dated 05.05.2015 in favour of
the petitioner no.2 happened hastily inasmuch as the purchase of the
stamp paper and the registration of the gift deed occurred in the course
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 4 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
of a few hours, it can only be concluded that the petitioners attempted
to defraud the respondent no.1.
(iii) The petitioners had failed to provide basic amenities and take care of
the basic physical needs of the respondent no.1, as a result of which,
the respondent no.1 was living with one of her daughters.
(iv) The Appellate Authority was unable to accept the contention of the
petitioners that the respondent no.1 had transferred the four flats in the
subject property to the petitioner no.2 out of her own free will and that
the respondent no.1 was later “abducted” by her daughters. The
Appellate Authority further reasons that the petitioners had been
unable to address the issue as to how the respondent no.1 was
allegedly abducted by her daughters “so easily”; why the petitioners
did not file a police complaint upon the respondent no.1 being
allegedly abducted by her daughters; why the petitioners did not allow
peaceful re-entry of the respondent no.1 after her alleged abduction
and why the respondent no.1 was required to seek police assistance
when she attempted to “reclaim her possessions”. On this basis, it was
observed that the respondent no.1 had indeed been defrauded by the
petitioners.
(v) It has been found that the facts in the instant case are distinguishable
from the facts in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1684 inasmuch as the respondent no.1 had
specifically made contentions / pleaded as regards the condition/s
attached to transfer, before the Tribunal. It has also been observed that
the respondents have accepted the said condition in their pleadings
filed before the Tribunal by admitting that the transfer of property in
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 5 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
favour of the petitioner no.2 was out of love and care and because the
petitioner no.2 took care of the respondent no.1. Since the transfer of
property by respondent no.1 was made out of love and affection for
the petitioner no.2, she expected, and it was implicit that the petitioner
no.2 would continue to care for the respondent no.1. However, the
material placed on record and the conduct of the parties shows that the
caring did not continue and the petitioners ended up abandoning the
respondent no.1 and did not even allow respondent no.1 to have
access to her own belongings.
(vi) There was an implicit condition attached to the transfer of property by
the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner no.2 thereby satisfying
the twin conditions for attracting Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act
laid down in Sudesh Chhikara (supra).
(vii) Upon specifically questioning the respondent no.1, the Appellate
Authority found that there was no substance in the contention of the
petitioners that the respondent no.1 had been pressurised into
initiating proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside inasmuch as the necessary precondition/s for invoking
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act as laid down in Sudesh Chhikara
(supra) have not been satisfied in the present case.
14. It is submitted that in terms of the decision in Sudesh Chhikara
(supra), the twin conditions attached with the transfer of property must be
pleaded in the petition under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and be
established. However, neither the said conditions were pleaded in the
petition filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 6 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
Act nor did it form part of the gift deed dated 05.05.2015, which was an
unconditional gift deed duly accepted by the transferee.
15. It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to take into
consideration the stand of the respondent no.1 which has been recorded in
the order dated 20.12.2019 as well as the rejoinder recorded before the
learned Maintenance Tribunal, that the respondent no.1 does not require
maintenance from the petitioners and that she is the one who has been
maintaining the petitioners.
16. It is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to
enquire into issue/s of force, fraud, coercion and misrepresentation inasmuch
as the same falls within the domain of the Civil Court. It is submitted that in
terms of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the deeming fiction
thereunder is contingent upon the twin conditions mentioned therein.
Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment dated 30.01.2023 of the
Calcutta High Court in Himangshu Mondal v. Sachirani Mondal [Case No.
C.O. 1891/2021].
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the terms for
revocation of a gift deed are not mentioned thereunder, the same cannot be
revoked. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in N. Thajudeen
v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3037.
18. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
inasmuch as the gift deed in question could not have been cancelled by the
Appellate Tribunal inasmuch as the condition/s for revocation of the gift
deed is not mentioned therein and as such, there was no oral agreement to
this effect prior to the execution of the gift deed.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 7 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that pursuant to
Section 123 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the terms and
conditions for revoking a gift deed must be “written terms and conditions”
and a pleading to that effect in the petition under Section 23(1) of the Senior
Citizens Act, is a pre-requisite.
20. It is submitted that a pleading made in the petition under Section
23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act forms the basis for exercise of jurisdiction
by the Maintenance Tribunal and the burden is on the applicant to establish
the existence of the twin conditions attached to the transfer of the property
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 draws the attention of this
Court to the conduct of the petitioners. It is submitted that subsequent to the
petition under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act being filed by the
respondent no.1, the petitioners executed a sale deed dated 19.01.2016 and
10.05.2016 with respect to two of the four flats transferred by the respondent
no.1 in the favour of the petitioner no.2 and executed an agreement to sell
dated 03.06.2016 for the third flat, without intimation to the Court.
Furthermore, the fourth flat was put on rent. It is submitted that the aforesaid
sale deeds and agreement to sell are under challenge before the learned trial
court.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the suffering of
the respondent no.1 at the hands of the petitioners has been mentioned in the
12 letters sent by her to the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal
and the same have been annexed as annexure P-8 (colly) to the present
petition.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 8 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
23. It is submitted that the condition that a son needs to take care of his
mother cannot be expected to be documented as an “express condition” and
the basis for such a condition is required to be inferred from the pleadings as
an “implied condition”. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 has admitted
to ‘taking care’ of the respondent no.1 and the same ought to be construed as
an implied condition that such care would continue throughout the lifetime
of respondent no.1 and thereby need not be expressed as a written condition.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 draws a comparison between
the facts in the present case with the facts in Sudesh Chhikara (supra). It is
submitted that while the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) had
observed that the petition under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act did not
contain a pleading as regards the transfer of property therein being subject to
the condition of the transferee providing ‘basic amenities’ and taking care of
the physical needs of the senior citizen therein, the application under section
23 of the Senior Citizens Act filed by the respondent no.1 in the present case
contains such a pleading in prayer ‘b’ of the said application.
25. It is also submitted that in addition to prayer ‘b’ of the aforesaid
application under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the respondent no.1
had also sent a representation dated 14.05.2016 to the Presiding Officer of
the Maintenance Tribunal stating that the petitioners took advantage of the
poor physical and medical condition of the respondent no.1 subsequent to
the death of her husband (father of the petitioner no.1) in the garb of the
false promise to take care of the respondent no.1. Furthermore, attention is
also drawn to another representation dated 08.07.2015 sent by the
respondent no.1 to the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal
seeking that directions be issued to the petitioners to deliver the personal
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 9 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
belongings of the respondent no.1 including her dentures, clothes, medical
card, ID cards, cash etc.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the condition for
taking care of the senior citizen need not be express and can be gathered
from the pleadings. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment
dated 10.04.2024 in Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai
[W.P.(C) 590/2023]; judgment dated 01.09.2023 in Mohammed Dayan v.
District Collector, Tiruppar District and Others [W.P.(C) 28190/2022];
judgment dated 06.03.2025 in S. Mala v. District Arbitrator & Others [W.A.
3582/2024] and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025) 2 SCC 787.
REASONING AND CONCLUSION
27. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of the relevant statutory
provision under which the application had been filed by the respondent no.1
before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking that the gift deed dated 05.05.2015
be declared as void. The said provision reads as under –
“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.–
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act,
has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property
shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the
Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an
estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has
notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-
section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the
organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.”
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 10 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
28. A perusal of the language of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act
clearly sets out that the transfer of property by a senior citizen, by way of a
‘gift deed or otherwise’, is deemed to be vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue
influence and thereby can be declared as void by concerned Tribunal
provided that (i) the transfer of property should have been made subject to a
condition that the transferee shall provide “basic amenities and basic
physical needs” to the senior citizen / transferor and (ii) the transferee fails
to fulfil such a condition.
29. In the present case, the gift deed dated 05.05.2015 does not contain
any explicit recital stipulating / incorporating a condition that the petitioners
shall continue to maintain or take care of the basic amenities and physical
needs of the respondent no.1 pursuant to transfer of property. The same only
refers to “love and affection” as basis on which the transfer was effectuated
by the respondent no.1.
30. Thus, the question that arises for consideration in the present
proceedings is whether the “conditions” stipulated under Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act (that the petitioners would continue to maintain and / or
take care of basic amenities and basic physical needs of the senior citizen)
can be implied or inferred.
31. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the scope, purport and import
of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. Time and again it has been
emphasized that the beneficial nature of a legislation must guide the
interpretation and application of the statutory provisions therein.
32. The Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit (supra), while construing the
provisions of the Senior Citizens Act referred to the judgment of K. H.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 11 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC 126, in which it has been held as
under:-
“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a
purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund
Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341] The Act should receive a
liberal construction to promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan
Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573
and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] Also, literal construction of the provisions of a
beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the Court’s duty to discern
the intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such an intention
is ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or functional
interpretation. [Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2
SCC 614 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 335]
***
13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute
was designed to remedy should first be identified, and then a
construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy
should be adopted. [Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay
Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55] It is settled law that
exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare legislations should be
given strict construction. [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram
Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] It was observed in Shivram A.
Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai
Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] that the exclusionary provisions
in a beneficial legislation should be construed strictly so as to give a
wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its
evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the
Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council [Minister
Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council,
2008 HCA 48 : (2008) 237 CLR 285] , Kirby, J. held that the principle of
providing purposive construction to beneficial legislations mandates that
exceptions in such legislations should be construed narrowly.”
33. Taking note of the dicta laid down in K. H. Nazar (supra) and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Senior Citizens Act, the Supreme
Court in Urmila Dixit (supra) held as under: –
“14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the
challenges faced by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must beW.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 12 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must
be adopted.
15. Before adverting to the provisions of the Act, we must be cognizant of
the larger issue that this case presents i.e. the care of senior citizens in
our society. This Court in Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram
Sawai [Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC
278 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 354] highlighted that it is a social obligation for
both sons and daughters to maintain their parents when they are unable
to do so.
16. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah
Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , this Court observed
that when a case pertaining to maintenance of parents or wife is being
considered, the Court is bound to advance the cause of social justice of
such marginalised groups, in furtherance of the constitutional vision
enshrined in the Preamble. Recently, this exposition came to be reiterated
in Rajnesh v. Neha [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC
(Civ) 220 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749] .
34. Further, in Urmila Dixit (supra), the Supreme Court also referred with
approval, the observations laid down in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India,
(2019) 2 SCC 636, wherein it has been observed as under:-
“3. The rights of elderly persons is one such emerging situation that was
perhaps not fully foreseen by our Constitution-framers. Therefore, while
there is a reference to the health and strength of workers, men and
women, and the tender age of children in Article 39 of the Constitution
and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and
disablement and in other cases of undeserved want in Article 41 of the
Constitution, there is no specific reference to the health of the elderly or
to their shelter in times of want and indeed to their dignity and
sustenance due to their age.
4. Eventually, age catches up with everybody and on occasion, it renders
some people completely helpless and dependent on others, either
physically or mentally or both. Fortunately, our Constitution is organic
and this Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted in path-
breaking developments in law, particularly in the sphere of social justice,
which has been given tremendous importance and significance in a
variety of decisions rendered by this Court over the years. The present
petition is one such opportunity presented before this Court to recognise
and enforce the rights of elderly persons–rights that are recognised by
Article 21 of the Constitution as understood and interpreted by this Court
in a series of decisions over a period of several decades, and rights that
have gained recognition over the years due to emerging situations.”
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 13 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
35. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), a judgment strongly relied upon by the
petitioner, it has also been acknowledged that the Senior Citizens Act “has
been enacted for the purpose of making effective provisions for the
maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens”.
36. Undoubtedly, and concededly, if a gift deed makes an explicit and
express reference to the condition/s of maintenance of the concerned senior
citizen, it is open for the senior citizen to invoke the beneficent provisions of
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, in the event of infraction of the said
conditions. This Court finds no cogent rationale for denying the same
dispensation to a senior citizen if the said conditions are not expressly set
out, but can be inferred or implied from attendant circumstances. The same
would be consistent with the beneficent objects and purposes of the Senior
Citizens Act.
37. It would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court
in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) which are as under:-
“12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear
from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For
attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions
must be fulfilled:
a. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the
transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs
to the transferor; and
b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs to the transferor.
13. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the
transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or
undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of
the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare
the transfer as void.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 14 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a
gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones,
a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached
to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and
affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged
that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are
attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established
before the Tribunal.
15. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent
no. 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed
subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent
no. 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to
respondent no. 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018
passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded.
It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be
seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a
reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments.
Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua
non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case,
as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no. 1 that the
release deed was executed subject to such a condition.
16. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1. Even
in the counter, it is not pleaded that the release was subject to such a
condition. It is merely pleaded that the appellant had no intention to take
care of her mother. Thus, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot
be sustained as the twin conditions incorporated in sub-Section (1) of
Section 23 were not satisfied. Unfortunately, the High Court has not
adverted to the merits of the case at all.”
38. From the above observations, it is evident that even though the
relevant conditions (viz. that the senior citizen would be looked after) were
not specifically mentioned in the concerned gift deed, the Supreme Court
embarked upon consideration of the relevant pleadings before the Tribunal
to ascertain whether any reference was made therein to such pre-conditions.
39. Thus, the fact that the conditions were not explicitly set out in the gift
deed, did not foreclose the matter. The judgment recognises that it is
permissible to look at attendant circumstances, including the pleadings in the
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 15 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, to ascertain whether the
existence of the conditions is made out.
40. No doubt, in the facts of Sudesh Chhikara (supra), the Supreme
Court found that the twin conditions incorporated in sub-section (1) of
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act were not satisfied, hence, the relief
was denied to the senior citizen. However, the said judgment does not lay
down a blanket proposition, as sought to be contended on behalf of the
petitioners, that absence of any express incorporation of the “conditions”
referred to in Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act, in the gift deed,
would by itself foreclose the matter and shut the door on the senior citizen.
41. Even in Urmila Dixit (supra), the relevant conditions were not
expressly incorporated in the gift deed in question. Instead, reliance is
sought to be placed on attendant circumstances viz. conditions incorporated
in a separately executed “vachan patra” / promissory note. Taking note of
the same, it was held as under:-
“22. Adverting to the facts at hand, we find that there are two documents
on record. One, a promissory note dated 7-9-2019 which records that the
promisor (respondent) shall serve the appellant and her husband till the
end of their life, and in the absence of him fulfilling such obligation, the
subsequent deed can be taken back by the appellant. Second, the gift
deed dated 7-9-2019 also records a similar condition i.e. the donee
maintains the donor, and the former makes all necessary provisions for
the peaceful life of the appellant donor. Both these documents were
signed simultaneously.
23. The appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking
stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has
been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the
parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned
in Sudesh [Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, (2024) 14 SCC 225 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1684] must be appropriately interpreted to further the
beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render
otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the
High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the gift deed to beW.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 16 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
cancelled since the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens
were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by
the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial
legislation.”
42. In Gandhimathi v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue
Divisional Officer, Salem and Ors., MANU/TN/0208/2024, the Madras
High Court considered the issue as to whether a settlement deed or a gift
deed whereby the transfer was effectuated by the senior citizen could be
declared as void even in the absence of specific recital / incorporation of the
twin conditions referred to Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. In that
context, it was observed as under:-
“15. With reference to Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, this Court
has elaborately considered the issues in the case of Mohamed Dayan vs.
District Collector [(2023) 4 LW 613]. The consideration for such
settlement deeds executed by the senior citizens in favour of any person is
out of love and affection. In other words, the love and affection, being the
consideration for execution of the Settlement Deed, the condition to look
after the senior citizen is to be construed as implied. Consideration,
being the essence of contract under the Indian Contract Act and in such
nature of cases, consideration would be on “love and affection”, the
scope of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, is to be interpreted
pragmatically, so as to ensure that non-mentioning of any such condition
in the Settlement Deed would not take away the right of the senior citizen
to file a petition under the Senior Citizens Act, to cancel the Settlement
Deed on the ground that the beneficiaries of the Settlement Deed is not
looked after the interest of the senior citizen. Ultimately, the object of the
Senior Citizens Act is to ensure life, protection and livelihood of the
senior citizens. Therefore, the provisions are to be interpreted in the
context of the objects sought to be achieved under the Senior Citizens
Act.
16. The Act provides for more effective provisions for the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens guaranteed and recognised
under the Constitution. Therefore Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act,
cannot be interpreted blindly to mean that the non-mentioning of any
condition in the Settlement Deed would deprive the senior citizen from
approaching the Competent Authority under the Senior Citizens Act. The
principles of constructive interpretation is to be adopted, while
interpreting the welfare legislation, which is enacted to protect the
livelihood of the senior citizen in our country.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 17 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
17. Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, contemplates “where any senior
citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or
otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall
provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor
and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at
the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal”.
43. Again, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S. Mala v.
District Arbitrator & District Collector and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad
1764, held as under:-
“31. The phrase “subject to the condition that the transferee shall
provide the basic amenities” in the statute is not meant to imply that such
a condition must be explicitly stated in the Gift or Settlement Deed. The
interpretation of this provision is broader. It should be understood in the
context of the second part of the provision, which states that the transfer
may be deemed to have been made under fraud, coercion, or undue
influence, if the transferee fails to provide the agreed-upon care. The
condition to provide for the senior citizen’s maintenance is implied,
based on the relationship between the senior citizen and the transferee,
typically one of familial love and affection.
32. In other words, the Act acknowledges that property transfers from
senior citizens, especially to children or close relatives, are often
motivated by love and affection. The senior citizen’s decision to transfer
property is not merely a legal act but one made with the hope of being
cared for in their old age. This love and affection become an implied
condition in the transaction, even if the transfer document itself does not
explicitly state it. If the transferee does not provide the promised care,
the senior citizen can invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled.
33. The law does not require an express condition in the document for
maintenance. Instead, it recognises 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.
34. 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.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 18 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
35. Thus, Section 23(1) emphasizes the protection of senior citizens from
exploitation or neglect after they have transferred property in trust, often
based on love and affection. The law provides an important safeguard,
recognising that these transfers are typically made with an implicit
understanding that the senior citizen will be cared for in their old age. If
the transferee fails in this duty, the transfer can be annulled, ensuring
that the senior citizen’s dignity and security are upheld.”
44. In reaching the conclusion, the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v.
Commr., Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730, Sudesh Chhikara
(supra) and Urmila Dixit (supra).
45. Further, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunny Paul v. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7451, held as under:-
“37. In the present case, though the allegation of the respondents No. 2
and 3 is of the trespass and forcible occupation of the property by the
petitioners, yet even if it is presumed, as alleged by the petitioner No. 1,
that he had been permitted to stay in the property, then also it would
amount to transfer of the property in question. Needless to state, that
even this permissive use amounts to transfer and that too on the
condition that petitioner No. 1-son would not harm them physically or
mentally. In fact, in the Indian context, there would be a presumption
that the transfer was subject to petitioner No. 1-son providing all the
basic necessities and looking after the physical needs of the senior
citizens. Since the Maintenance Tribunal has found that the petitioner
No. 1-son has committed acts of physical assault and mental cruelty on
the senior citizens, the pre-conditions mentioned in Section 23 stand
satisfied.”
(emphasis supplied)
46. A Division Bench of this Court in Sunny Paul v. State of NCT of
Delhi and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11640, while upholding the
aforesaid judgment, observed as under:-
“11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue which
has been decided by the learned Single Judge is whether the Act of 2007
provides for a remedy to Senior Citizens/parents of monetary
maintenance by the children/relative and/or does it provide for eviction
of adult children in case of parental abuse. The said question has beenW.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 19 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
answered by the learned Single Judge by referring to various judgments
as relied upon by both the parties. It is noted that in the impugned order,
the learned Single Judge has also answered the question whether a claim
for eviction before the Maintenance Tribunal is maintainable under
Section 23 of Act of 2007 and that too on allegations of forcible ouster
and in the absence of a claim for maintenance. The learned Single Judge
concluded that Sections 4 and 23 are separate and distinct remedies. In
other words, the claim for maintenance is not a condition precedent for
passing an order of eviction under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. He
referred to two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the
case of Promil Tomar v. State of Haryana (supra) and Justice Shanti
Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (Retired) v. Union Territory,
Chandigarh (supra) in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. We have also
considered the aforesaid aspect. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act
of 2007, it is seen that the same has been enacted to provide for effective
provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens
guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. The necessity of framing the
Act is because of the erosion of joint family system resulting in the elderly
parents and senior citizens getting neglected by the children including
lack of physical and financial support from them. Section 3 of the Act of
2007 gives the overriding effect over any other enactment/instrument.
Chapter II of the Act deals with the maintenance of parents and senior
citizens. Section 4 of the Act enables a senior citizen including parent
who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or out of the
property owned by him to make an application under Section 5 for
his/her maintenance so that he/she can lead a normal life. Chapter V of
the Act of 2007 deals with protection of life and property of senior
citizens. Section 23(1) under Chapter V confers a power on the
Tribunal to declare transfer of property in certain circumstances as
void. Section 23(2) inter-alia stipulates that a senior citizen has a right to
receive maintenance out of an estate and if such estate or part thereof is
transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the
transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is
gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without
notice of right. There is nothing in Section 23, which pre-supposes an
application for maintenance as a prerequisite for seeking a relief under
it. The scope of Section 23 is to declare the transfer of property by a
senior citizen with an intent that the transferee shall provide the basic
amenities and physical needs to the transferor and if such transferee
refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, in such
an eventuality, the transfer of property can be declared void by the
Tribunal. A senior citizen may be contended if the transfer of property
effected is treated as void so as to enable him to maintain himself from
the estate, for which a senior citizen may not seek maintenance. So theW.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 20 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of a
claim for maintenance by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, a petition under
Section 23 shall not be maintainable, is without any merit. Further, the
Delhi Government had initially framed Delhi Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which have been amended in
the year 2016, whereby Sub Rule 3(1)(i) has been incorporated to Rule
22 of the Rules. The same reads as under:–
“(i) A senior citizen may make an application before the Dy.
Commissioner/District Magistrate(DM) of his district for eviction of his
son and daughter or legal heir from his self-acquired property on
account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
xxxxxxxxx”
12. The said Sub Rule has undergone an amendment in the year 2017 to
the following extent:–
“(i) A senior citizen/parents may make an application before the Deputy
Commissioner/District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son
and daughter or legal heir from his property of any kind whether
movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible
and include rights or interests in such property on account of his non-
maintenance and ill-treatment.”
13. The said Sub Rule 3 has been incorporated in Rule 22 of the Rules to
give effect to Section 23 of the Act and not to Section 4 of the Act. So, it
follows that it is not necessary that to invoke Section 23, one has to seek
maintenance under Section 4.
14. The learned Single Judge is right in relying upon the judgments in the
case of Promil Tomar (supra) and Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief
Justice (Retired) (supra) by holding as under:–
36. The Courts have repeatedly acknowledged the right of the
senior citizens or parents to live peacefully and with dignity.
In Promil Tomar (supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
held that peaceful living for the senior citizens in their property is
the apparent objective of the Maintenance Act.
37. In the present case, though the allegation of the respondents
No. 2 and 3 is of the trespass and forcible occupation of the
property by the petitioners, yet even if it is presumed, as alleged by
the petitioner No. 1, that he had been permitted to stay in the
property, then also it would amount to transfer of the property in
question. Needless to state, that even this permissive use amounts
to transfer and that too on the condition that petitioner No. 1-son
would not harm them physically or mentally. In fact, in the Indian
context, there would be a presumption that the transfer was subject
to petitioner No. 1-son providing all the basic necessities and
looking after the physical needs of the senior citizens. Since the
Maintenance Tribunal has found that the petitioner No. 1-son has
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 21 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
committed acts of physical assault and mental cruelty on the senior
citizens, the pre-conditions mentioned in Section 23 stand satisfied.
38. There is nothing in the language or purported intent of Section
23 of the Act 2007 to indicate that the Tribunal has the power to
declare a transfer of property void if and only if the senior citizen is
seeking maintenance under the Act from the opposite party.
39. In Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (supra), the Punjab & Haryana
High Court passed an eviction order under the Act, 2007 where not
only no maintenance had been sought by the senior citizen, but in
fact the senior citizen had volunteered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as
monthly maintenance to his son.
40. Consequently, Section 4 and Section 23 are separate and
distinct remedies and the claim for maintenance is not a condition
precedent for passing an eviction order under Section 23 of the Act,
2007.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. Thus, the absence of any express reference to the pre-conditions
referred to in Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act does not preclude the
senior citizen from taking refuge under the beneficent provisions thereof, if
the existence of the said conditions can be said to be implied or implicit or
established in the light of the attendant facts and circumstances.
48. In the present case, the concerned senior citizen transferred substantial
part of her property (viz. four flats) to the petitioner no.2. It is true that the
gift deed only referred to the said transfer being made on account of “natural
love and affection” for the Donee/petitioner no. 2, being her daughter in law.
However, from the attendant facts and circumstances, as noticed in a very
detailed and well considered order passed by the appellate authority, it is
evident that it was an implicit condition that the daughter in law would
continue to care for the respondent no.1 (senior citizen).
49. In the present case, appellate authority has found that the petitioners
failed to provide basic amenities and / or take care of the needs of the
respondent no.1, as a result of which, the respondent no.1 was compelled to
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 22 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
live with one of her daughters. There are also unsavoury allegations as to the
manner in which the petitioners got the gift deed executed in favour of the
petitioner no.2.
50. During the course of proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal,
the respondent no.1 sent various letters to the Presiding Officer regarding
the suffering / treatment meted out by the petitioners against the respondent
no.1. Some of the aforementioned letters are reproduced hereunder:-
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 23 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 24 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 25 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 26 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 27 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 28 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 29 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 30 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
51. The above communications reveal a deplorable state of affairs where
the senior citizen/respondent no.1 seems struggling even to retrieve her basic
items of necessity from her previous residential abode. These include the
senior citizen’s dentures, doctors’ prescription, medical card, bank passbook,
Id Cards/Adhar Card/Pan Card, jewellery etc. The factual conspectus of the
present case reveals a sordid situation where the senior citizen was
abandoned soon-after / in the immediate aftermath of the gift deed being
executed. This Court is constraint to observe that this is the very mischief
which Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act seeks to redress.
52. It is also noticed that the application filed before the Maintenance
Tribunal contained a prayer/relief (prayer-b) whereby the respondent no.1
inter-alia sought direction / order to the effect that the petitioners herein be
directed to take “all due care” of the respondent no.1 (senior citizen).
53. Further, a perusal of the reply filed by the petitioners in the
proceedings under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act before the
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 31 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
Maintenance Tribunal reveals that it was the petitioner’s case therein that
they had been taking care of the respondent no.1.
54. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the issue as to whether the
relevant pre-conditions, as set out in Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act
were satisfied or not, very much arose in the backdrop of the peculiar factual
conspectus and the pleadings that were filed by the parties.
55. In the impugned judgment, the appellate authority has rendered the
following findings:-
“76. It is evident from the record and submissions of the appellant
that she has four children (three daughters and one son) and she
wanted to gift in equal proportion, one flat each to all her four children
from her property no.WZ-406/3,Plot No.49, Janankpuri, Hari Nagar,
GhantaGhar, New Delhi-110064 and to keep one flat for herself out of
total 5 flats. On 30.04.2015, the appellant got her 3 daughters to
purchase separate stamp papers for executing Gift Deeds of one flat
each in their favour. She even ensured that appointments were duly
taken from the Sub-Registrar office for 06/05/2015 for the registrations
of the deeds. It shows the appellant’s intention to distribute the flats
equally.
77. It is also a matter of record that on 05/05/2015, the respondents
took the appellant to the Sub-Registrar Office and got executed a Gift
Deed for all her four flats in favour of respondent no.2
78. This sequence of events is suspicious because it is not clear as to
why on the one hand appellant would carefully plan to execute deeds
for one flat each in favour of her daughters on 06/05/2015 and then
suddenly one day before she would execute the impugned gift deed
thereby transferring all 4 flats in favour of Respondent No-2. In fact,
the registration on 05/05/2015 has happened in so much haste (the
purchasing of stamp paper and registration taking place in a short time
span of few hours only) that there cannot but be only one explanation to
this sequence of events that it was an attempt on the part of respondents
to defraud the appellant.
79. That the appellant lodged a complaint in P.S. Janakpuri against
the respondents on the same day i.e. the date of execution of Gift Deed
(05.05.2015) by alleging that the respondents had gotten transferred
her four properties in their name by pressurizing her also shows that
the registration took place without her will and wishes. Later, appellant
painfully narrated all the cruel and dishonest acts of the respondents
alongwith relevant supporting documents to the Ld. Tribunal in herW.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 32 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
letters dated 08.07.2015, 31.07.2015, 26.05.2016, 17.07.2017,
25.08.2015, 21.01.2016, 30.03.2016, 19.09.2016, 14.05.2016,
26.11.2016 (through Tehsildar), 10.10.2017, 03-06-2019, 14.08.2019,
09.11.2019. These letters clearly show that respondents/transferee
refused to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
appellant/transferor and hence she had to live with her daughter at her
house.
80. The arguments of the respondents that this transfer was made by the
appellant out of her own free will and that she was later abducted by
the sister of respondent No-1 cannot be relied upon for two reasons.
First, because, if the transfers were indeed made by the appellant out of
her own free will then why would she lodge a Police complaint the very
same day and why would she have taken three other appointments for
registration in favour of her daughters for the next day i.e. 06/05/2015,
Second, because, it is also not clear that if the appellant had
transferred the properties out of love and affection for respondents as
claimed by them in their pleadings before the Tribunal as well, then
how come they let her get allegedly abducted “so easily” by her
daughters and why didn’t they file any police complaint regarding the
same. Moreover, if this was indeed an abduction then why didn’t they
allow peaceful re-entry of the appellant when she came to reclaim her
possession and why did appellant have to seek police help for the same.
These issues could not be addressed in any manner by the respondents
in their pleadings or oral arguments and hence it is clear that a fraud
was indeed played upon the appellant by the respondents.
81. Another argument of the respondents is that there was no condition
in the Gift deed that the said transfer is conditional on grant of
maintenance or providing of basic amenities and physical needs and
hence this appeal itself is not maintainable under the Act. For making
this argument the respondents have also relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble S.C. in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi & Anr. as
referred to hereinabove. This was the main contention on the basis of
which even the Ld. Tribunal dismissed the petition of the appellant.
82. In order to address this contention, it is important to refer to the
provisions of Section 23 of the Act as reproduced hereinbefore. It is
evident from the same that the condition that the transferre shall
provide the basic amenities and basis physical needs to the transferor
need not necessarily be a written condition as part of the Instrument of
Transfer. More often than not, senior citizens rely upon their children
to draw up the papers for such transfers and merely sign these papers
on trust and oral promises/submissions of their children. It cannot be
expected that an old lady aged around 85 years would draw up the
papers herself and ensure to insert such conditions in the document.
Such conditions are to be interpreted from the circumstances and also
the pleadings of the parties.
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 33 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
83.In fact the Hon’ble SC in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti
Devi &Anr as referred to hereinabove, has also categorically stated
that in that case, the transferor did not specifically plead that the
release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees
would provide the basic amenities. The Apex Court also noted that
oral evidence was also not adduced in the said case to establish such a
condition. The facts of the instant case are however distinguishable
because the appellant has specifically pleaded this argument
regarding the condition attached to the transfer before this Court.
Moreover, even the respondents have indirectly accepted this
condition in their pleadings before the Tribunal where they mentioned
that this transfer was out of love and care and because the
Respondent No-2 took care of the appellant, It is obvious that in case
the appellant transferred her properties to Respondent No-2 because
of such care and love and affection, then she expected such caring to
continue. But as is evident from the material placed on record before
this Court and also from the conduct of the parties before this Court,
such caring did not continue and instead the respondents completely
abandoned the appellant and did not even allow her access to her own
belongings.
84. From the above, it is thus clear that there was an implicit
condition attached to this transfer which was not fulfilled by the
transferee and hence the instant case fully satisfies the two conditions
as explained by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sudesh
Chhikara v. Ramti Devi & Anr. for attracting Section-23 of the Act.
Hence, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been
made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then
becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the
Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.
85. These facts were not analysed by the Ld. Maintenance Tribunal and
the petition of the appellant was summarily dismissed.
86.Finally, this Court specifically questioned the appellant who was
personally present during the hearing whether she was under any kind
of pressure or influence from the sisters of Respondent No-1. The reply
of the appellant was vehement and categorical that she has been
defrauded by the respondents and is not under any kind of pressure
from anyone and has herself sought the help of her daughters (sisters of
respondent no-1) to pursue her legal remedies. Hence, the contention of
the respondents that this appeal and other proceedings are being filed
by the appellant under pressure do not hold any water.
56. On a perusal of the record, this Court finds that there is nothing
perverse in the findings rendered by the appellate authority, so as to warrant
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 34 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On the contrary, this Court is constrained to observe that the facts of the
present case clearly bring out the pitiable condition of the respondent no.1
(senior citizen) on account of breach on the part of the petitioners of the
conditions referred to in Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, which
were implicitly a pre-condition of the transfer of the senior citizen’s property
to the petitioner no.2. The concerned senior citizen (the respondent no.1) has
been virtually left high and dry after transferring the bulk of her properties to
the petitioner no.2 (daughter in law) and has been forced to take refuge in
the house of one of her daughters.
57. This Court is mindful of the fact that certain other High Courts,
notably a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court1 has interpreted Section 23 of
the Senior Citizens Act differently. The interpretation is to the effect that the
application of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act requires that the
conditions referred to therein (viz. obligation to provide basic amenities and
basic physical needs to the senior citizen) be expressly stated in the
document/s of transfer. This Court is inclined to take a different view
inasmuch as (i) the said restrictive definition is not borne out from the dicta
laid down by the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) and Urmila
Dixit (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for
interpreting/applying the beneficent provisions of the Act; (ii) the statutory
text of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act does not mandate any express
recital of the relevant condition/s. Insisting upon an explicit/express
stipulation would introduce a requirement which is not borne out from the
plain language of the Statute. Such an interpretation would also result in
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 35 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
unwarranted reading down of the beneficial provision. (iii) reading the
requirement of express incorporation of the relevant condition/s in the
transfer document (gift deed) would also clearly stultify the legislative intent
behind the beneficent provision. It would substantially defeat the purpose of
the salutary provision/s by restricting its applicability only to such cases
where senior citizens have been legally astute enough to insist on
incorporation of appropriate express covenants in the transfer document/s
(gift deed/s), thereby excluding/denying the applicability of the beneficent
provisions to the vast majority of vulnerable elderly / senior citizens. As
mentioned in the Appellate Authority’s order itself that “more often than not,
senior citizens rely upon their children to draw up the papers for such
transfers and merely sign these papers on trust and oral
promises/submission their children. It cannot be expected that an old lady
aged around 85 years would draw up the papers herself and ensure to insert
such conditions in the document. Such conditions are to be interpreted from
the circumstances and also the pleadings of the parties”; (iv) It has been
implicitly recognized in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) and Urmila Dixit (supra)
that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, does not exclude / obviate the
possibility of the relevant obligation/s being inferred/implied from the nature
of the transaction or the attendant circumstances, even if not explicitly set
out in the transfer documents; (v) this Court is unable to adopt an
interpretation which would encourage / facilitate unscrupulous transferees to
exploit senior citizens by obtaining “gift deeds” without express conditions,
while intending abandonment of the concerned senior citizen(s), as has
happened in the present case. The protection / remedy provided for in
1
Subhashini v. District Collector, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4080
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 36 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be rendered illusory in such
manner.
58. It is also notable that in Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors., (2025) 3
SCC 266, the Supreme Court has taken a view that a writ court shall refrain
from reappreciating evidence and arriving at a finding of facts unless the
same is perverse in nature or exceeds the jurisdiction of the concerned
authority. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
“16. It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless
the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted
perversely.”
For the above reason as well, the impugned order does not warrant
any interference.
59. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. The pending
applications also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
AUGUST 14, 2025/r, dn, sl
W.P.(C) 10854/2023 Page 37 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:17.08.2025
18:39:46