Can Property Transfers Be Voided Under Senior Citizen Act? SC Clarifies Conditions!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, emphasizing that for a property transfer to be voided under this section, it must be established that the transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen (paras 12-13).

Court’s View

The Court held that there was no evidence or even a plea suggesting that the release deed was executed subject to the condition that the appellant would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the respondent (paras 14-15).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court, and dismissed the petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, due to the absence of any condition attached to the release deed (para 17).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, Sudesh Chhikara, contended that the release deed executed by respondent no.1 (her mother) in favor of her and her sister did not include any condition that they would provide basic amenities and physical needs, and thus, the deed should not be declared void under Section 23.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the absence of any condition in the release deed and argued that there was no evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Case of the Respondent

The respondent, Ramti Devi, claimed that her children did not take care of her and that the release deed should be declared void under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.

Respondent Relied On

The respondent relied on the contention that the appellant and her sister failed to take care of her, invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the conditions required for voiding a property transfer under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?
Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that for a transfer to be voided under Section 23, it must be shown that the transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. This condition was not established in this case (paras 12-13).

Question: Why did the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court?
Answer: The Supreme Court set aside the orders because there was no evidence that the release deed was executed with the condition that the appellant would provide basic amenities and physical needs to respondent no.1, making the application of Section 23 invalid (paras 14-15).

Question: What was the Supreme Court’s view on the allegations of fraud, coercion, or undue influence in this case?
Answer: The Supreme Court noted that there was no material on record to indicate that the execution of the release deed was vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence (para 8).

Question: How did the Supreme Court address the rights of the developer who intervened in the case?
Answer: The Supreme Court left the questions regarding the rights claimed by the intervenor (the developer) open to be decided in appropriate proceedings, without addressing them in this judgment (para 16).

Question: What was the final outcome of the appeal filed by Sudesh Chhikara?
Answer: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the High Court, and dismissed the petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 23 of the 2007 Act (para 17).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Date of Order: December 6, 2022
Case Name: Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2021