In an important ruling, the Madras High Court has addressed a crucial question regarding property settlements made by parents in favor of their children and has stated the parents can take back the property if children fail to care them as promised.

The single-judge benhc of Justice S M Subramaniam in this view dismissed writ petition filed by son who was contesting the validity of Settlement Deed being executed based on love and affection of parents.

"Parents can unilaterally cancel the settlement deed if there is just a mention that it is being given to them out of love and affection," the court said.

Brief Facts:

The case involves a dispute regarding a property settlement made by the senior citizen (the mother, referred to as the fourth respondent) in favour of her child (the writ petitioner). After the property settlement, the petitioner allegedly refused to maintain his parents, which led to a legal dispute. The petitioner, who is the son of the fourth respondent (his mother), contested the validity of a Settlement Deed executed by his mother in favour of him, which transferred certain property to him.

The petitioner claimed that he had purchased the property with his own income and opposed the idea that the Settlement Deed was based on love and affection. The dispute arose when the petitioner refused to maintain his parents after the execution of the Settlement Deed. The fourth respondent, his mother, sought relief under the Senior Citizens Act, alleging non-maintenance by her son. The case revolved around whether the Settlement Deed was valid, considering the principles of love and affection as implied conditions under the Senior Citizens Act, and whether the petitioner was obligated to maintain his parents.

Contentions of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that he had purchased the property in question with his own income, disputing the notion that it was acquired by his mother. He asserted that he was not obligated to maintain his parents and opposed the validity of the Settlement Deed, arguing that it did not involve love and affection as a consideration and implied condition.

The respondents, particularly the fourth respondent who is the mother of the petitioner, argued that the property had been purchased with her husband's income, gold jewels, and savings, and that she had executed the Settlement Deed out of love and affection for her son's better future, with the expectation that he would take care of her during her lifetime. They maintained that the Settlement Deed was valid and that the petitioner had failed to fulfil his obligation to maintain his parents.

Observations of the court:

The court observed that the primary issue in the case was whether the Settlement Deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of her son, the petitioner, was valid or if it could be declared null and void under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.The court noted that the key consideration in this matter was the "love and affection" of parents towards their children, which was a significant factor in determining the validity of such transactions. It emphasized that the purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act were to protect the life, security, and dignity of senior citizens.

Additionally, the court observed that Section 23 of the Act was to be understood in terms of the conduct of the transferee (the petitioner) before and after the execution of the Settlement Deed, rather than just the specific stipulations within the document. In evaluating the facts, the court found that the fourth respondent had executed the Settlement Deed with the intention of securing her son's future and out of love and affection.

Therefore, the court concluded that the requirements of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act had been met, as the "love and affection" and good intentions of the parents constituted implied conditions for invoking the deeming clause of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Based on these observations, the court concluded that the fourth respondent was entitled to the relief granted by the authorities, and there was no infirmity or perversity in their decision.

Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition. Overall, the court's observations highlighted the importance of protecting the rights and welfare of senior citizens and stressed that the intention and love and affection of parents were vital factors in assessing the validity of property transactions involving senior citizens.

Decision of the court:

The court upheld the relief granted to the fourth respondent and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. There was no order as to costs in this matter. The court's decision affirmed the validity of the Settlement Deed and highlighted the importance of protecting the rights and welfare of senior citizens in property transactions involving them.

Case Title: Mohamed Dayan vs. The District Collector,Tiruppur & others.           
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S M Subramaniam  
Case No.:  WP No.28190 of 2022&WMP No.27489 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Sudhakar
Advocate for the Respondent: For R1 to 3 : Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar,Special Government Pleader. For Respondent-4 : Mr.N.Manokaran 

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :