The following article encapsulates an important judgment passed by hon’ble Suprme Court1 wherein the law in question is section 23 of THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 20072
Factual Matrix
Supreme Court was considering an appeal preferred against an order of divisional bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the appellant (mother of respondent) purchased certain property on 23/08/1968 which she in turn transferred to her son by executing gift deed on 07/09/2019. On 09/09//2019 the respondent executed a promissory note wherein he stated that he will maintain the appellant her mother till her natural life and in case of default her mother will be at liberty to repudiate the gift deed executed earlier.
On 24/12/2020 appellant applied to Sub Divisional Magistrate Chhatarpur for setting aside he gift deed as her son attacked her and her husband as well for further alienation of property in his favor. Deed was declared NULL AND VOID.
Subsequently respondent preferred an appeal to Collector which was also dismissed. Aggrieved from the order respondent filed writ petition before the Single Judge bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which affirmed the order passed by lower authorities while observing that respondent has not approached the court with clean hands.
Again appeal was preferred against the order of single judge bench before Division Bench which set aside the order of learned single judge bench on the ground that section 23 provides the tribunal with the jurisdiction to check whether the deed contains a clause for provision of amenities and whether breach of such condition has occurred. The impugned deed was devoid of any such clause thus order given by tribunal is in excess of jurisdiction.
Appellant preferred an appeal to Supreme Court under SLP.
Issue Involved in the case
The issue involved in the case was that whether setting aside the order under Section 23 of the Act was correct or not.
Opinion of Supreme Court
The court embarked upon considering the issue with some rules of interpretation. The court considered the act in hand as a beneficial legislation. Court cited Brahmpal v. National Insurance Company3, K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob4 and where earlier the court opined that provisions of beneficial legislation are to be interpreted in purpose oriented approach. It can be liberal interpretation but strict and literal interpretation should be avoided so as to give effect to the purpose and object of the Act. For that purpose the sentential legis should be ascertained first and then interpretation advancing such intention should be made.
Supreme Court also cited earlier judgments of M/S Kozyflex Mattresses Pvt. Ltd v. Sbi General Insurance Company Limited5 where it included corporation in the definition of consumer in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 wherein it was asserted that from two possible interpretations one that favours beneficiaries should be accepted.
Apex court then embarked to ascertain out the intention of the Act by relying on its judgment of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.7 Wherein it was held that
“Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”
Accordingly the court came to conclusion that the Act I hand is a beneficial piece of legislation and thus purposive interpretation should be employed. Exploring some landmark cases related to obligation of maintenance of parents and wife court also relied upon Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India8 wherein right of elderly person were recognized to be embodied in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Coming to the case in hand supreme court observed that for application of section 23(1) the conditions that needs to be satisfied are:
(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and
(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
Upon considering the factual matrix of the case in hand court observed that there were two documents one was deed of gift and other was promissory note and the content of both were consistent with each other and thus Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reinstating the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate that grants possession to appellant and rescinds the impugned sale deed.
Distinguishing it earlier judgment of S Vanitha (supra) court observed that order to grant possession along with eviction order are in consonance of the section 23 of the Act as it is complementary to the nature of order passed under section 23
Final Order
In the final order the court quashed the impugned sale deed and granted possession to the appellant.
- 2025 INSC 20 ↩︎
- 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.—
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
↩︎ - (2021) 6 SCC 512 ↩︎
- (2020) 14 SCC 126 ↩︎
- (2024) 7 SCC 140 ↩︎
- (2023) 9 SCC 433 ↩︎
- (2021) 15 SCC 730 ↩︎
- (2019) 2 SCC 636 ↩︎
