Senior citizens entitled to revoke gift deeds if children fail to take care of them: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that senior citizens have a right to revoke gift or settlement deeds executed in favor of their children if the children fail to maintain their parents, even if the deeds do not expressly require the children to care for their elderly parents [S Mala v. District Arbitrator and ors.]..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 already lays down that a senior citizen can revoke a property transfer if the beneficiary (transferee) fails to fulfil an expectation that the beneficiary will take care of the senior citizen (transferor). The Court has now clarified that this expectation need not be expressly spelt out in the transfer deed, but should be viewed as an implied condition in all gift deeds executed by elderly parents in favor of their children. "[The Senior Citizens] 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(s) 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," the Court's March 6 ruling said. .A senior citizen's decision to transfer property is made with the hope of being cared for. This love and affection becomes an implied condition.Madras High Court.The Court held that such a liberal interpretation of the Senior Citizens Act is required to enforce its object, which is to protect the dignity and security of senior citizens. "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," it added. .By way of background, an elderly woman, S Nagalakshmi (now deceased) had earlier transferred some property to her son. She later alleged that after transferring the property, she was neglected by her son and daughter-in-law, especially after her son’s death.She, therefore, filed a complaint under the Senior Citizens Act seeking to cancel the settlement deed. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) conducted an inquiry and concluded that the senior citizen, aged 87 years at the time, had been neglected by her daughter-in-law. The RDO proceeded to cancel the property transfer.The RDO's decision was challenged by the daughter-in-law before the High Court. After a single judge of the High Court dismissed her plea, she filed an appeal before the Division Bench. Her counsel argued that Nagalakshmi had not incorporated any specific condition in the property settlement deed. .The Court, however, observed that the elderly parent had a natural expectation that she would be cared for by her son and daughter-in-law during her lifetime. This was an implied condition in the settlement deed, the Court said. This was also the reason why the senior citizen had executed the settlement deed only in her son's favour, rather than bequeath the property to her three daughters as well. "Therefore, it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughter-in-law would take care of her till her life time. Such a condition being implied under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the decision of the competent authority annulling the Settlement Deed is in consonance with the spirit and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act," the Court said, while dismissing the daughter-in-law's appeal and upholding the RDO's decision to cancel the settlement deed..Advocates K Subramanian and S Punniyakotti appeared for the appellant.Additional Government Pleader E Ranganayaki appeared for the State district authorities. .[Read Order]