The Supreme Court recently set aside a ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for taking a strict view of a beneficial legislation like the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors]..Section 23 of the Act states that if a senior citizen transfers property to a person on the condition that the transferee provides basic amenities to them, and the transferee fails to provide the same, the transfer of property shall be deemed fraudulent and can be declared void if the senior citizen chooses so.The Court has now reiterated that in such cases, tribunals can order the transfer of property back to elderly parents."In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.".Without such a power, the objectives of the 2007 Act meant to benefit the elderly stand defeated, a Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol opined..The case, which originated from a dispute between one Urmila Dixit and her son Sunil Sharan Dixit, revolved around the transfer of property purchased by the former in 1968. Urmila had executed a gift deed in favour of her son, on the condition that he would provide for her maintenance. However, allegations of neglect and mistreatment prompted Urmila to seek the cancellation of the deed.The Supreme Court's decision came after a series of legal battles, including rulings by the sub-divisional magistrate, the Collector of Chhatarpur and a single-judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had initially ruled in favour of Urmila. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had later set aside these verdicts, prompting Urmila to appeal to the Supreme Court..In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the nature of the 2007 Act and called for a liberal interpretation of such legislation to protect the rights of senior citizens. On the High Court's finding that Section 23 is a standalone provision, the Court held,"In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee."It noted that in this case, the conditions for the well-being of senior citizens, as stipulated in the gift deed, were not met, justifying the cancellation of the deed. The Bench thus directed the authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh to ensure compliance with the judgment and restore possession of the property to Urmila Dixit by February 28, 2025..Senior Advocate V Mohana along with Advocates Sarvam Ritam Khare, Vrinda Kapoor, Kushagra Sharma, and Anuj Agarwal represented the appellant. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan and Advocates Uday Prakash Yadav, SK Giri, Heena, Antariksh Singh, Yogendra Singh, and Ramjee Pandey represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]
