The Delhi High Court has held that a senior citizen’s application to declare a gift deed void under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the “Senior Citizens Act”) cannot be rejected simply because it lacks express pleadings asserting neglect or failure of maintenance by the recipient. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that when exercising powers under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant material on the record, not merely the bare contents of the application.
The case involved an 88-year-old senior citizen who executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law. She later filed an application under Section 23(1) seeking to void the deed, alleging that the daughter-in-law had failed to provide basic amenities, care and maintenance. On appeal, the daughter-in-law challenged the order cancelling the deed on the ground that the original application before the Tribunal did not specifically plead that the gift was subject to a condition that the transferee would provide the senior citizen with basic amenities and physical needs, nor did it plead refusal or failure to provide such care.
The High Court examined the legal framework under Section 23(1), which empowers the Tribunal to declare a transfer void if a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen, and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to comply. The Court noted earlier precedents emphasising that both the existence of the condition and the refusal or failure must generally be established.
However, the Court held that a strict requirement that the application must plead an express condition would undermine the legislative purpose of the Act. It pointed out that in the case before it, although the application did not explicitly plead the condition, the senior citizen had placed on record letters and applications showing that she executed the gift deed on the expectation of being maintained and looked after and that those expectations went unfulfilled. These materials disclosed that after the deed was executed, the transferee denied medicines, personal articles, personal care and misbehaved with her.
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in relying on this material and concluding that the pre-conditions under Section 23(1) were satisfied, even in the absence of express pleadings. The bench emphasized that the Tribunal must look beyond the formal wording of the application and consider the entire material available—which may include correspondence, complaints, and conduct post-transfer—to determine whether the gift was subject to a condition of care which was then breached.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the decision cancelling the gift deed and held that the absence of explicit plea on neglect or maintenance in the original application does not automatically disqualify a senior citizen’s claim under the Act if the supporting material on record shows fulfilment of the statutory prerequisites.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.