The Supreme Court of India overturned a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, reinforcing the protective intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court ruled that senior citizens can reclaim property transferred under the condition of care if the transferee fails to provide support. This decision came in a case where an elderly woman, Urmila Dixit, alleged neglect after gifting property to her son, leading to the deed’s cancellation. The Court emphasized the Act’s purpose of safeguarding senior citizens’ rights, ensuring speedy and effective remedies for their protection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision that had taken a strict stance on the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
This law is designed to protect senior citizens, especially in cases where they transfer property on the condition of receiving care but are later neglected.
According to Section 23 of the Act, if an elderly person transfers property to someone with the agreement that they will be taken care of, and the transferee fails to fulfill this obligation, the transfer can be deemed fraudulent. In such cases, the senior citizen can request that the transfer be declared void.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that tribunals have the authority to order the return of property to elderly parents in such situations.
The Court emphasized:
“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.”
The judgment stressed that without such powers, the 2007 Act would fail to achieve its purpose of benefiting senior citizens.
The Bench, comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, reiterated the importance of protecting elderly individuals’ rights and providing them with simple and effective legal remedies.
This particular case involved a dispute between Urmila Dixit, an elderly woman, and her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit. Urmila had bought a property in 1968 and later executed a gift deed in her son’s favor. The condition of this deed was that her son would provide for her maintenance.
However, Urmila alleged that she was neglected and mistreated, leading her to seek the cancellation of the deed.
The legal journey began with decisions from the sub-divisional magistrate and the Collector of Chhatarpur, which ruled in Urmila’s favor. A single-judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also supported Urmila. However, a Division Bench of the same High Court later overturned these decisions, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Supreme Court highlighted the intent and purpose of the 2007 Act. It clarified that Section 23 is closely tied to the objectives of the Act, which aim to protect elderly citizens who may face neglect after transferring property.
The Court explained:
“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.”
The Court found that in this case, the son had failed to meet the conditions of the gift deed, justifying its cancellation.
It directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to ensure that possession of the property is restored to Urmila Dixit by February 28, 2025.
Senior Advocate V Mohana represented Urmila.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the respondents.
CASE TITLE:
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Elderly Parents
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
