Madras High Court
S.Rajan vs R. Srinivasan on 1 April, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:849
W.A.No.3178 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA No. 3178 of 2024
and
CMP.No.24480 of 2024
1. S.Rajan
No.18, Periya Palayathamman Koil
Street,
Maduma Nagar, Perambur,
Chennai – 600 011.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. R. Srinivasan
S/o. K. Raju,
No.23/13, Madhavaram High road,
2nd Lane, Perambur,
Chennai – 600 011.
2.The District Collector
Office of the Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The District Revenue Officer
Office of Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 04:46:55 pm ) Page No.1/55
W.A.No.3178 of 2024
4.R. Geetha
D/o. Srinivasan, W/o. P. Rajakumar,
No.45, Baaba Nagar, 10th Street,
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.
5.Sumathi Dcruz
D/o. Srinivasan,
W/o. John Dcruz,
No.15/20, Mathiazhagan Street,
Periyar Nagar, Vyasarpari,
Chennai – 600 039.
6.P. Rekha
D/o. Srinivasan,
W/o. Pallavarajan, No.18, Kaviam Street,
Sivam Nagar, Periya Kuppam,
Tiruvallur – 602 001.
7.S. Sathish Kumar
S/o. Srinivasan, Res. at No.7, Sri Ram
Nagar, First Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai
- 039.
8.S. Mohanraj
S/o. Srinivasan, Res. at No.7, Sri Ram
Nagar, First Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai
– 039.
(R4 to R8 are impleaded as per order
dated 25.06.2024 in WMP No.16585 of
2024 in WP No.9414 of 2024)
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 14.08.2024 made in WP No.9414 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 04:46:55 pm ) Page No.2/55
W.A.No.3178 of 2024
For Appellant(s): Mr.A. Palaniappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vasudevan
for Mr.V.Manisekaran for R1
Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan for
Additional Government Pleader R2&3
M/s. S. Lakshmi for R4-7
Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Arvindathithan for R8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 04:46:55 pm ) Page No.3/55
W.A.No.3178 of 2024
JUDGMENT
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
Table of Contents:
S.No TOPIC PAGE
. No.
by Appellant
(B) Appeal filed before the Appellate 7
Authority
th
Respondent
respondent/Senior Citizen
(A) Indian Constitution and Senior Citizens 15
Act
Act
of the Senior Citizens Act
I. Facts in Brief:
Under assail is the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.9414 of
2024.
2. The 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition, Mr.S.Rajan, is the
appellant before this Court. The 1st respondent/Mr.R.Srinivasan is the senior
citizen, and the respondents 1, 4 to 8 are the sons and daughters of the 1st
respondent. The marriage between the 1st respondent and S.Baby was
solemnized, and out of their wedlock, three daughters and one son were
born. Subsequently, he married one Shantha as his 2nd wife and gave birth
to two sons. The senior citizen was engaged in a wholesale paper business,
earned properties, educated all his children, and all of them are married.
Out of the self-earned money, the senior citizen purchased several
properties in his name, as well as in the names of his two wives.
3. The senior citizen settled three properties in favour of the
appellant, Mr.S. Rajan, by executing three settlement deeds. On the date of
execution, the appellant executed an undertaking affidavit and agreed to
collect all the rents from the properties and handover the same to the senior
citizen for his livelihood. However, the appellant refused to honour his
commitment and not paid the rental income to the 1st respondent and his
wives, as per his promise and harassed the senior citizen both mentally and
physically. Consequently, a complaint was instituted under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred
to as Senior Citizens Act) .
(A). Complaint of Senior Citizen and Reply by Appellant:
4. The complaint given by the 1st respondent/senior citizen before
the Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai is that, from and out of his
business earnings, he purchased several properties. On account of old age,
the senior citizen settled his properties in favour of his sons and daughters.
As far as the appellant is concerned, he had settled three properties in
Document No.841 of 2015, dated 09.03.2015, Document No.840 of 2015,
dated 09.03.2015 and Document No.2273/2019, dated 12.07.2019. Apart
from settling three properties, the senior citizen handed over his entire
business to the appellant for the benefit of his future. However, after getting
all the properties and business from the senior citizen, the senior citizen and
his wife were driven out from their house. The rental income received were
not paid to the senior citizen, as agreed by the appellant. Therefore, the
senior citizen filed a complaint for annulling the settlement deeds.
5. The appellant, Mr.S.Rajan appeared before the Senior Citizens
Tribunal and gave a statement. The appellant has taken a stand that the
senior citizen is having sufficient income to maintain himself and his wife,
and he is receiving rent from other properties. Therefore, the petition under
the Senior Citizens Act is not maintainable. He states that he has paid
substantial amount to redeem the mortgage of the property from the Indian
Bank. At the time of marriage of one Sathish, son of the 2nd wife, he has
given 10 lakhs. Additionally, he gave 10 lakhs for the construction of a
temple. Since he has given substantial amounts to the senior citizen, he
claims that he is not obligated to provide any further financial support. The
Revenue Divisional Officer made a finding that the senior citizen has
executed settlements in favour of his sons and daughters, but he filed a
complaint only against the appellant, to cancel the three settlement deeds
executed in his favour. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.
(B). Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority:
6. The senior citizen preferred an appeal before the District
Collector and gave a statement before him. However, the District Collector
confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
7. Challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and
the appellate authority/ the District Collector, the Writ Petition came to be
instituted.
(C). Writ Court's Findings:
8. The Writ Court with reference to the facts, considered whether
the complaint is entertainable under Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act.
When a senior citizen executed his properties in favour of his sons and
daughters, and filing a complaint against one son, whether it can be
entertained or not is also an issue considered. The Writ Court further
elaborately considered the scope of Section 23 of the Act. The Writ Court
categorically found that the transferee or ownee shall not only provide basic
amenities but also basic physical needs to the transferor under Section 23
of the Act. In the absence of taking care and maintaining the senior citizen,
the settlement or gift deed would be deemed that the transfer was made
under fraud, coercion, or undue influence, and the transferor would have the
option of obtaining a declaration that such transfer was void.
9. The Writ Court held that love and affection being the
consideration for settling the properties, the condition to maintain the senior
citizen is an implied condition under Section 23(1) of the Act. The complaint
was filed against the son, who agreed to give the rental income of the
properties to the senior citizen. Thus, the complaint ought not to have been
rejected by the competent authority and the Appellate Authority.
10. The Writ Court considering the facts and circumstances and
the scope and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act, set aside the orders
passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, and
allowed the Writ Petition by annulling the settlement deeds executed by the
Senior citizen in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the present Writ Appeal
came to be instituted.
II. Arguments Made on Behalf of the Appellant:
11. The main contention of the appellant is that, the appellant has
been providing funds to the Senior citizen. However, the Senior citizen has
not placed all the facts before the competent Authority and the Writ Court.
Despite the fact that the 1st respondent settled other properties in favour of
other sons and daughters, the complaint has been lodged by the 1st
respondent against appellant alone. Thus, the appellant has been singled
out and therefore, the very proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act is
abuse of process. The appellant has paid substantial amounts on various
occasions to the 1st respondent, and these aspects were not considered by
the Writ Court. The rental income was shared by the appellant with the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer and
the Appellate Authority/District Collector is to be affirmed. When the
appellant has sufficiently provided funds to the 1st respondent and the senior
citizen is capable of maintaining himself and his wife, and receiving rent
from other properties, the Maintenance Petition under the Senior Citizens
Act itself is not entertainable.
12. The Senior Citizen handed over his business, which was
running at loss. Thereafter, the appellant has built his business in a different
field and earned money. Therefore, it is not as if the appellant earned
money from the business handed over by the 1st respondent. The
allegations set out in the Writ Petition by the Senior citizen are false, and
the Writ Court has failed to appreciate the incorrectness of the statement
made before the Court.
13. The Writ Court proceeded on the footing that the 1st respondent
is residing in rental premises and struggling to meet his day-to-day
expenses. However, the rental income for his maintenance is being paid by
the appellant. The judgment relied on by the Writ Court is factually
distinguishable. Therefore, the Writ order is liable to be set aside.
14. It is mainly contended that there is no express condition in the
settlement deed. Therefore, the complaint for annulling the settlement deed
under Section 23(1) of the Act is not maintainable. Section 23(1) of the Act
specifically stipulates that the condition must be mentioned in the settlement
deed. In the absence of any express condition, the complaint filed for
canceling the settlement deeds is not entertainable.
III. Submissions Made on Behalf of the 8th Respondent:
15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 8th
respondent would mainly contend that when love and affection is lost in the
family, and in the absence of any express condition in the settlement or gift
deed, the complaint filed for annulling the settlement deeds are not
entertainable. In the present case, on account of strained relationship
between the appellant and the 1st respondent, the complaint was lodged
under the Senior Citizens Act. The complaint itself is motivated. The
complaint has been filed only against one son, while other sons and
daughters, are also beneficiaries of settlement deeds. Thus the very
complaint itself is untenable and the original authority and the appellate
authority under the Act rightly rejected the complaint.
16. The Writ Court proceeded on the ground that love and affection
being the consideration for executing the settlement deed, the condition to
maintain the senior citizen is implied and need not be explicitly stated in the
document. Such a view taken is impracticable, since Section 23(1) of the
Act expressly states that the condition must be stipulated in the document.
Therefore, the interpretation of the Writ Court that the condition may be
implied, deserves to be assailed.
17. It is contended that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act is an
exception to the general law governing the transfer of property under the
Transfer of Property Act. It contemplates that the transfer of property by
senior citizen is void only in certain circumstances. Therefore, in the
absence of any specific condition that basic amenities and basic physical
needs are to be provided by the transferor to the transferee, the settlement
deed cannot be annulled by invoking Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
Thus, two conditions stipulated under Section 23 is to be satisfied for
securing the relief of declaration. However, in the present case, three
settlement deeds were executed unconditionally. Therefore, the Writ Court
has committed an error in annulling the settlement deeds. The scope of
Section 23 cannot be expanded beyond the conditions stipulated under the
provision.
18. Section 23 cannot be pressed into service to upset the genuine
transfers effected by the settlor after the limitation period of three years
under the Limitation Act.
19. The applicability of the Limitation Act cannot be waived, since
there is no specific bar for the application of Limitation Act. Thus, the
property cannot be declared null and void beyond the period of three years.
Principle of estoppal is to be applied in the present case and therefore, the
complaint itself in the present case is not entertainbale. The Writ Court has
appreciated the facts which may not be correct, since the facts are disputed.
Therefore, Section 23 of the Act cannot be interpreted to defeat the principle
of approbate and reprobate, and allow the senior citizen to enjoy the fruit of
transfer and deny the same to other parties. At the outset, the 8th
respondent supported the case of the appellant herein.
IV. Submissions Made on Behalf of the 1st Respondent/Senior
Citizen:
20. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/senior citizen would
submit that Senior Citizens Act must be interpreted pragmatically and
practically, so as to suit the Indian society which is intended by the
legislature. A duty to maintain parents can be traced to Section 20 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In this context the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the judgment in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya
Manohar Arbat Vs .Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai And Another1 held that
“Indian Society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their
parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their
duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm”. The
Senior Citizen Act has been held to be a beneficial legislation by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, requiring a liberal construction. Therefore, the Courts have
interpreted the scope of Sections 4, 20 and 23(1) of the Act to reach the
objectives of the Act and to protect the livelihood of the senior citizen.
Therefore, the Writ Court is right in interpreting the scope of the Senior
Citizens Act and thus, the Writ Appeal is to be rejected.
21. The interpretation of Section 23(1) of the Act is intended to
protect the property of the Senior citizens. Section 23(1) of the Senior
Citizens Act must be read long with Section 126 of the Transfer of Property
Act. Section 126 of the Transfer of Properties Act provides for revocation of
a gift deed on happening of a specific events among other grounds. This
Section would apply to Senior citizen, but these Sections require an
expressed condition or event to be established before the Civil Court.
However, the Senior Citizens Act contains effective provision for
1 1987 2 SCC 278
maintenance and welfare of the Senior citizens.
22. The parliament did not want to repeat the provisions of Section
31 and 126 of Transfer of Property Act. However, an exclusive and better
remedy has been provided to the senior citizens. It is not only the basic
amenities, which is assured but basic physical needs which is also to be
taken care of. Therefore, mere grant of maintenance in terms of money is
not the only object under the Senior Citizens Act, but the love and care is
contemplated under various provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.
V. Legal Position:
(A). Indian Constitution and Senior Citizens Act:
23. The essence of law is to serve and secure social solidarity,
ensuring that individuals fulfill their obligations as members of society.
Social welfare legislations emerge as instruments of justice, designed to
safeguard vulnerable groups and maintain societal balance. The
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a
significant enactment that embodies this philosophy by protecting the rights
and dignity of elderly citizens of our great nation.
24. Welfare systems differ across countries, but they commonly
provide support to the poor, unemployed, disabled individuals, the elderly
and those with dependent children. In a broader sense, welfare refers to the
overall well-being of individuals or groups, encompassing health, happiness,
safety, economic prosperity, and social security. A truly welfare-oriented
state ensures not just basic needs but also a dignified and fulfilling life for its
citizens. Providing for the welfare of the general public is a fundamental
responsibility of the Government.
25. The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a direct reflection of these
constitutional philosophy and ethos, ensuring that the elderly, who have
contributed to society throughout their lives, are not abandoned or deprived
of their basic necessities and physical needs. The vision of Article 41 of the
Constitution of India is to protect the rights and interest of senior citizens
and enable them to lead a life with dignity and respect. Thus, the Act
provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the well-being of senior
citizens of our great nation.
26. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, recognizes human dignity as a fundamental aspect of human rights.
Ensuring a dignified life for all individuals is a primary duty of the State.
Addressing concerns about the treatment of older persons, the Open-Ended
Group on Ageing, in its first session, observed that:"Another central
challenge for older persons is living with dignity. The very process of ageing
could threaten older people’s dignity as they were perceived by others to be
inherently less valuable to society. Independence, participation, and
autonomy were critical components of dignity. In particular, older persons
should be perceived as active members of their societies and not only as
recipients of social protection2"
27. Despite the constitutional assurances, ensuring a dignified life
for senior citizens remains a challenge in contemporary society. While
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the meaning of a
dignified life in old age depends on the legitimate needs of senior citizens.
28. The Supreme Court, in F.Francis Coralie Mullin v.
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi3 expanded the scope of Article 21
of the Constitution of India, recognizing that:
"We think that the right to life includes the right to
live with human dignity and all that goes along with
2These observations were noted by the Chair, while
submitting the report of the First Open Ended Working Group
on Aging.
3 A.I.R. 1981 746.
it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilities for reading, writing and expressing
oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and
mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
Of course, the magnitude and content of the
components of this right would depend upon the
extent of the economic development of the
country, but it must, in any view of the matter,
include the right to the basic necessities of life and
also the right to carry on such functions and
activities as constitute the bare minimum
expression of the human-self."
29. This interpretation of Article 21 reinforces the right of senior
citizens to a dignified life in their old age. As individuals grow older, they
often become financially, physically, and emotionally dependent on their
families or society. However, neglect, abandonment, and lack of proper care
have become serious issues affecting the elderly.
(B). The Scheme Under the Senior Citizens Act:
30. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill which was
introduced in the Parliament declares as follows:
“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. The
Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons
who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to
make provisions for setting-up oldage homes for
providing maintenance to the indigent older
persons. The Bill further proposes to provide better
medical facilities to the senior citizens and
provisions for protection of their life and property.”
31. The law has been made in order to cast an obligation on
the persons, who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make provisions for
setting-up oldage homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older
persons and also to provide better medical facilities to the senior citizens
and provisions for protection of their life and property, etc.
32. The objectives of the Act are summarised as follows:
a) To provide for appropriate mechanism to be set-up to provide
need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens from their
children, grandchildren or relatives as the case may be,
b) To provide for adequate medical facilities to senior citizens,
c) To provide for a suitable mechanism for protection of life and
property of senior citizens,
d) To provide for penal provision for abandonment of senior citizens,
e) To provide facilities for poor and destitute senior citizens,
f) To provide for setting up of old age homes in every district.
33. The Senior Citizen Act is principally welfare legislation.
However, as it deals with two class of people; First, parent [Section
2(h)‘Senior citizen’ means “any person being a citizen of India, who has
attained the age of sixty years or above.”] , who may or may not be senior
citizens, and second, senior citizens. There is a possibility of the two
groups of people aligning congruently.
34. The Act refers to two terms, which can be read in conjunction,
‘maintenance’ and ‘welfare’. Section 2(b) of the Act states Maintenance
‘includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and
treatment’ and ‘Welfare’ ‘means provisions for food, health care, recreation
centres and other amenities necessary for the senior citizens.’
35. For entitlement of maintenance under the Act, it is not
necessary that parents must be senior citizens, meaning thereby
parents need not have attained the threshold age of 60 years or more.
Parents and senior citizens are two classes complete and exclusive in
themselves. This is the reason section 4 of the Act provides entitlement to
both to get maintenance.
36. Section 4 reads as
‘Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens:
1. A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself
from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an
application under section 5 in case of—
i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children
not being a minor
ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred
to in clause (g) of section 2.
2. The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to
maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior
citizen may lead a normal life.
3. The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends
to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may
be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.
4. Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient
means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the
property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such
senior citizen :
Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the
property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such
relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.’
37. The scope of ‘maintenance’ includes within its ambit food,
clothing residence, medical attendance and treatment. The same shall be
considered while deciding maintenance allowance irrespective of gender of
parent. But if, an application is filed by senior citizens against relative who
would probably inherit that property the maintenance order shall be
considered from the point of view of ‘welfare’ which ‘means provisions for
food, health care, recreation centres, and other amenities necessary for the
senior citizens’. Defining the two terms distinctively may have two
connotations but whenever there is question of maintenance or
welfare of life and survival of parents and senior citizens, both
definitions must be seen from a cumulative perspective whereby life
includes conducive conditions for a normal life inclusive of dignity.
38. The term normal life should be considered as containing within
its scope dignified life while deciding maintenance or passing order for
welfare measures. In case of Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India4
Supreme Court opines:
‘We accept that the right to life provided for in
Article 21 of the Constitution must be given an
expansive meaning. The right to life, we
acknowledge, encompasses several rights but for
the time being we are concerned with three
important constitutional rights, each one of them
being basic and fundamental. These rights
articulated by the petitioner are the right to live
with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to
health. The State is obligated to ensure that these
fundamental rights are not only protected but are
enforced and made available to all citizens.’
39. Children includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-
4 (2019) 2 SCC 636
daughter but does not include a minor.’ [Section 2(a).] ‘Relative means
‘any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in
possession of or would inherit his property after his death.’ [ Section 2(g).]
Both words should be seen together to decipher the exact position of
maintenance of parents and senior citizens. The purpose of providing
definition of ‘children’ is basically to cover the matters of maintenance of
parents. Children are primarily the respondents in cases of application for
maintenance before the Tribunal under section 4. ‘Parents’ and ‘senior
citizens’ both are eligible to file an application for maintenance in case of
their inability to maintain themselves. Senior citizens, who do not have
any child, have also been extended protection but the process and
measures differ.
40. In order to meet the objective of the statute, there have been
instances where sons and daughters in law have been called for
maintaining the parents and senior citizens. However, the definition of
children and relatives should include the sons or daughters in law and
therefore, changes in the provisions of the law is needed. [Balbir
Kaur v. Presiding officer Cum SDM]5.This change is exacerbated by the
fact that there are parents and senior citizens who do not have any child
5 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 260
within the statutory sense of the term but require maintenance and welfare.
Furthermore, an expansive meaning of the term would help ensure that no
parent or senior citizen is left out of the umbrella of the welfare.
41. Application for maintenance mentioned under section 4 may
be filed by a senior citizen or a parent as the case may be : or if he or she is
incapable, by any other person or organization authorized by him or her; or
if the facts come to the knowledge of the tribunal it may take suo
motu cognizance of the fact. In respect of the jurisdiction where such an
application maybe filed, section 6 provides that the application may be filed
where he or she resides or last resided or where the defendant i.e. children
or relative as the case may be, reside. The term ‘organization’ has been
explained in section 5 which means any voluntary association registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or any other law for the time
being in force. This is the duty of State Government to constitute the tribunal
for each sub-division, which shall be presided over by an officer not below
the rank of Sub-divisional officer of a state.
(C). Interpretation and Scope of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act:
42. The preamble as well as the statement of objects and reasons
clearly shows that the intention of the Parliament in enacting the law and the
purpose of the law has to be gathered in interpretative process. Sec. 23(1)
provides that any senior citizen who, after the commencement of the
abovesaid 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 etc.
43. Clause (1) of section 23 lays down following conditions for
transfer of property by senior citizens:
(a) transferee shall provide thebasic amenities and basic physical
needs to the transferor and
(b) such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs.
44. Many a times, senior citizens either to fulfill the demands of
their children or out of love and affection transfer their properties in favour of
the latter. Section 23(1) of the Act comes to the rescue of the former if they
are ill-treated or neglected by their children/relative after such transfer.
Under Section 23(1), such transfer is revocable at the option of the senior
citizen. It provides that where a senior citizen has transferred his property by
way of a gift deed or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee
shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such
transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the
transfer of such property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion, or under undue influence6
45. In the case of Promil Tomar and Ors v. State of Haryana
and Ors7it was held that the word “otherwise” used under Section 23(1) of
the Act would include transfer of ownership, possession by way of a lease
deed, mortgage, licence, gift or sale deed.
“The word "otherwise" cannot be ignored for
the objective of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance
Act. In context to the objectives of the Act,
"transfer" would mean that transfer of property by
senior citizen need not be a gift only but it could be
any transfer within the meaning of Transfer of
Property Act or would even include transferring of
any right of the nature of title or possession... A
senior citizen who had transferred his right, title or
interest to any other person by gift or otherwise
(which would include transfer of possession by
lease, mortgage or licence) would become void in
6 Shabeen Martin v. Muriel, (2016) 4 KLJ 699
7 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 26819
the event of transferee refusing to provide
amenities and physical needs. The said transfer in
such circumstances would be termed as fraud and
would be void.”
46. The plain language of Section 23 does not require the condition
referred to therein namely the condition that the transferee shall provide the
basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, to be stated in
writing in the document that transfers the property or in any other
document”. The “condition” can be either express or implied and
should be understood based on the conduct of the transferee before
and after the execution of gift/ settlement deed.
47. In Smt. Sunita Bhasin v. State of NCT of Delhi8 held that, it
is implicit in any gift of property, that is executed out of natural love and
affection, that the transferee would reciprocate the love and affection and, at
the very least, provide the basic amenities and meet the physical needs of
the donor and express stipulation that the gift deed has been made on an
understanding that the transferee would look after the basic needs of the
donor is not necessary.
8 W.P.(C) 13139/2018
48. As per Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “fraud”
includes any promise made without an intention of performing it. The third
proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the
existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition
precedent to the attaching of any obligation under such contract, grant or
disposition of property may be proved. Thus, it is evident that there is no
requirement even under law that the “condition” should form part of the
written document .
49. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (herein
“TP Act”) defines a gift as any transfer of certain existing movable and
immovable properties made voluntarily without any consideration. Section
126 of the TP Act provides for the suspension or revocation of a gift on
happening of any specified event upon which the donor and done have
agreed upon. Condition for maintenance during old age cannot be assumed
as a consideration for gift. More so, consideration specified under Section
122 refers to monetary consideration and natural love and affection. The
gift/settlement deed on a promise that the donee will look after the donor at
the old age is a transaction without consideration. It is, therefore, clear that
there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the TP Act and Section
23(1) of the Act.
50. Moreover, Section 23(1) is only an addition to the provisions of
the TP Act as it provides additional safeguards to the senior citizens. Even if
there is any inconsistency between Section 23(1) and provisions of the TP
Act, the former will prevail not because it has an overriding effect over the
other laws for the time being in force but, based on the legal maxim
“Generaliaspecialibus non derogant”, i.e., special enactment (the Act)
prevails over the general enactment (TP Act – a general law relating to
transfer of property).
51. Thus, while construing the provisions of Sec. 23 it is to be
borne in mind that in common law, a person could get a justiciable cause of
action so as to seek setting aside of a transfer deed like gift deed,
settlement deed, etc. only on limited grounds of actual fraud,
misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence, incompetency, etc. But
with the legislative intervention through the special provision in Sec. 23, a
senior citizen is enabled to seek setting aside of a transfer deed like
settlement deed, gift deed, etc. if he has so transferred the property with the
explicit or implicit condition that the transferee shall provide the basic
amenities and necessities to him and in case of violation of such condition,
then a legal fiction is created that due to such violation, it shall be deemed
that the transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion or misrepresentation.
52. So at the option of the transferor-senior citizen, he could seek
the voiding of such transfer by the Tribunal in those contingencies. So it
creates an extra-ordinary remedy by such legislative intervention to
aid the senior citizen. The creation of such legal fiction of “deemed
fraud/coercion/undue influence” by the above enactment is indeed a serious
inroad into the common law position of having to plead and prove actual
fraud/coercion/undue influence, etc. So the said provision in Sec. 23 has
to be interpreted and construed not only as a welfare legislation, but
also strictly, due to such serious substantial inroads made to the
common law scenario.
53. It is not provided in explicit and clear terms in Sec. 23 as to
whether the transferee against whom the relief under Sec. 23 is sought for
by the transferor senior citizen should necessarily be confined to transferees
who are relatives or children of the senior citizen/parent. Sec. 2(g) of the
abovesaid Act defines a “relative” and Sec. 2(a) thereof defines the term,
“children” to include son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does
not include a minor.
54. The definitions' clause as per Sec. 2 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act clearly insists for a contextual
understanding of the various sub clauses therein, as it stipulates that the
various definitions are to be so understood, “unless the context otherwise
require”. The relevance and necessity for adherence to contextual
interpretation in appropriate cases has been underscored by the Apex Court
and various High Courts in a catena of rulings.
55. It would also be pertinent to refer to the canons of interpretative
construction based on the principle of purposive interpretation or
purposive construction. It will be relevant in that regard to refer to the
views of Aharon Barak, the eminent jurist and former President of the
Supreme Court of Israel, who in his illumating treatise “Purposive
Interpretation in Law” has pithly put it as follows: “Purposive interpretation is
based on three components : language, purpose, and discretion. Language
shapes the range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter acts
as a linguist. Once the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the
legal meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic
possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation
by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the text can bear in its
(public or private) language.”
56. As held by the Apex Court in the judgement in Shailesh
Dhairyaman v. Mohan Balakrishna Lulla, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 619
p.641 para 31, that the principle of “purposive interpretation” or “purposive
construction” is based on the understanding that the court is supposed to
attach that meaning to the provisions which serve the “purpose” behind
such a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed to
accomplish? And to put it otherwise to interpretative process the court is
supposed to realise the goal that the legal test is designed to realise,
etc.
57. Thus, the provisions of the Act, including Section 23, must be
read liberally and in a purposive manner. The principal object of the Act is to
enable the senior citizens and parents to secure their basic physical needs
and amenities and to void any transfers made with the understanding that
their needs would be looked after by the transferee, if the transferee fails to
live-up to the said commitment.
(D). Summary Procedure for Speedy Relief:
58. While Section 23 of the Act provides a legal remedy for senior
citizens to reclaim their property transferred under coercion, undue
influence, or fraud, Section 8 plays a crucial role in ensuring that such relief
is granted in an expeditious manner.
59. Section 8 of the Act mandates that the Maintenance Tribunal
shall adopt a summary procedure while conducting inquiries. This provision
ensures that senior citizens do not have to go through lengthy litigation to
secure their rights, thereby making the remedies under the Act more
accessible and effective.
60. The key features of Section 8 include:
1. Expedited Proceedings – The Tribunal is empowered to conduct
an inquiry in a summary manner, meaning that cases are resolved without
unnecessary procedural delays.
2. Quasi-Judicial Powers – The Tribunal possesses the powers of a
Civil Court for summoning evidence, enforcing the attendance of witnesses,
and compelling the production of documents.
3. No Full Adjudication of Title Required – Senior citizens seeking
eviction of abusive children/legal heirs or reclaiming transferred property
need only demonstrate some right, title, or interest in the property, rather
than proving absolute ownership.
61. The summary nature of proceedings under Section 8 aligns
with the spirit of the Act, which is to provide swift and effective justice to
senior citizens facing neglect, harassment, or financial exploitation.
62. Additionally, Maintenance Tribunals, while adjudicating claims
under Section 23, must take into consideration the need for prompt
intervention. They have the discretion to call for relevant documents,
including encumbrance certificates, to assess property claims. However,
requiring a full title adjudication would go against the very objective of the
Act, which is designed to provide immediate relief to senior citizens.
63. Thus, Section 8 complements Section 23 by ensuring that the
rights conferred under the Act are enforced without procedural hurdles.
64. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in the case of
S.Mala Vs. The District Arbitrator, is extracted as follows,
“....
(D) Case Laws on Senior Citizens Act:
36. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Vanitha
vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District and Others4, elaborately considered the
legislative scheme, rights of residence,
safeguarding against domestic violence etc. In
Paragraph No.24 of the judgment, the Apex Court
considered the distinction between sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 23. The conditions stipulated
expressly have been considered by the Court, but
the scope of interpretation, the beneficial
construction and the need for the protection needs
to be extended impliedly under the Senior Citizens
Act, have not been examined into by the Apex
Court in S.Vanitha's case cited supra. Therefore,
the expressed provision made under Section 23(1)
of the Act is one aspect of the matter and the
scope of certain implied benefits conferred under
Section 23 to the Senior Citizens is another aspect
of the matter, which is to be considered by this
Court in the context of the facts of each case.
37. In the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs.
Ramti Devi and Others5 in paragraph No.13, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court made an observation as
under;
“........
13. When a senior citizen parts with
4 2021 15 SCC 730
5 MANU/SC/1581/2022
his or her property by executing a gift or
a release or otherwise in favour of his or
her near and dear ones, a condition of
looking after the senior citizen is not
necessarily attached to it. On the
contrary, very often, such transfers
are made out of love and affection
without any expectation in return.
Therefore, when it is alleged that the
conditions mentioned in sub-section (1)
of Section 23 are attached to a transfer,
existence of such conditions must be
established before the Tribunal.”
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above case regarding the scope of Section 23(1)
of the Act, made an observation that “On the
contrary, very often, such transfers are made out
of love and affection without any expectation in
return”. It would be sufficient to form an opinion
that the Apex Court considered the implied
conditions in the said case. However, the Apex
Court further observed by stating that, if it is
alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer,
the existence of such conditions must be
established. Therefore, the Apex Court considered
that, very often transfers are made out of love and
affection, and in the event of any conditions
expressly made in the document, it must be
established.
39. Importantly, in Urmila Dixit's case cited
supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified
the scope of Senior Citizens Act in Paragraph
Nos.23, 24 and 25, which reads as under,
“......
23. The Appellant has submitted
before us that such an undertaking
stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her
petition under Section 23, it has been
averred that there is a breakdown of
peaceful relations inter se the parties.
In such a situation, the two conditions
mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be
appropriately interpreted to further the
beneficial nature of the legislation and
not strictly which would render otiose
the intent of the legislature. Therefore,
the Single Judge of the High Court and
the tribunals below had rightly held the
Gift Deed to be cancelled since the
conditions for the well-being of the
senior citizens were not complied with.
We are unable to agree with the view
taken by the Division Bench, because it
takes a strict view of a beneficial
legislation.
24. Before parting with the case
at hand, we must clarify the
observations made vide the impugned
order qua the competency of the
Tribunal to hand over possession of the
property. 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.
25. Another observation of the
High Court that must be clarified, is
Section 23 being a standalone
provision of the Act. 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.”
40. The Apex Court in the above
judgment has considered the case of S.Vanitha
cited supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Urmila Dixit cited supra culled out the
legal proposition that, even an implied condition
i.e., love and affection for execution of gift or
settlement deed would be sufficient enough for
nullifying the documents. The intent of the
legislature has been considered by the Apex
Court.
41. In the case of Mohamed Dayan vs.
The District Collector, Tiruppur District and
Others6, the Single Judge of this Court (SMSJ)
considered the scope of the Senior Citizens Act
and the judgment of the Kerala High Court was
also taken into consideration. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted herein under,
“.......
6 MANU/TN/5114/2023
34. In the context of the adoption
of the phrase “lead a normal life” Rule
20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior
Citizen Rules, enumerates that “it shall
be the duty of the District Collector to
ensure that life and property of senior
citizens of the District are protected and
they are able to live with security and
dignity”. Therefore, normal life includes
security and dignity. Thus the normal life
as indicated under Section 4(2) of the
Act, is not mere life, but a life with
security and dignity. In the context of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, life
includes decent medical facility, food,
shelter with dignity and security. All
such combined necessities of human
life is falling under the term “Normal
Life” emboldened under Section 4(2) of
the Senior Citizen Act. Therefore, simply
providing food and shelter would be
insufficient. But life includes providing of
decent medical facilities, food, shelter
and other requirements with dignity in
commensuration with the status of the
family and taking into consideration of
the living style of the senior citizen
throughout.
..................
..................
38. The Kerala High Court
observed in the case of Radhamani and
Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of
the Senior Citizen Act, cannot be
interpreted to the disadvantage of the
senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act
contemplates that “Where any senior
citizen who, after the commencement of
this Act, has 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”. The
phrase “ subject to the condition that the
transferee shall provide the basic
amenities” does not mean that the Gift
or Settlement Deed should contain any
such condition expressly. “Subject to the
condition” as employed in Section 23(1),
is to be holistically understood with
reference to the subsequent phrase i.e.,
“deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion or undue influence”. Both the
phrases would amplify that the deeming
clause should be considered so as to
form an opinion that the phrase “subject
to condition” amounts to an implied
condition to maintain the senior citizen
and any violation would be sufficient for
the purpose of invoking Section 23(1) of
the Act, to cancel the Gift or Settlement
Deed executed by the senior citizen.
.....................
....................
41. The entire purpose and object
of the Senior Citizens Act, is to consider
the human conduct towards them.
When the human conduct is indifferent
towards senior citizen and their security
and dignity are not protected, then the
provisions of the Act, is to be pressed
into service to safeguard the security
and dignity of senior citizen. Therefore,
the purposive interpretation of the
provisions are of paramount importance
and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be
mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting
the complaint filed by the senior citizen
on the ground that there is no express
condition for maintaining the senior
citizen. Even in the absence of any
express condition in the document,
“Love and Affection” being the
consideration for execution of Gift or
Settlement Deed, such love and
affection becomes a deeming
consideration and any violation is a
ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the
Act. Thus there is no infirmity in respect
of the order passed by the second
respondent in the present case.”
42. In the case of Radhamani and
Others vs. State of Kerala7, the learned Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court considered Section
122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In
paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it is observed
that, “Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
does not contemplate that the condition should
form part as recital in the deed of transfer. It only
refers that there should be a condition for such
transfer. This condition can be either express
or implied. If there is no express recital in the
deed, the Tribunal has to look around
7 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 33530
circumstances to find out whether conduct
otherwise dispel the intention of donor to revoke.
The consideration for executing a gift deed or
settlement deed is based on human conduct,
caring and conscientious. Transfer admittedly is
out of love and affection. Any donor in a gift deed
would expect in a natural course of human
conduct that donee continues to behave in same
manner as behaved before execution of the deed.
The love and affection influenced for execution of
the deed certainly must be enduring and without
any barrier.” It is further stated that,
“..........
11. It is to be noted that the
special scheme in terms of Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 could declare
certain transfer as void, taking note of
the fact that by taking advantage of the
emotionally dependent senior citizens,
relatives grab the property on the
pretext of providing emotional support.
Therefore, legislature thought such
transaction could be declared as void
as the conduct leading to transaction
was based on malice or fraud.
Therefore, condition referred in Section
23 has to be understood based on the
conduct of the transferee and not with
reference to the specific stipulation in
the deed of transfer. Thus, this Court is
of the view that it is not necessary that
there should be a specific recital or
stipulation as a condition in the transfer
of deed itself. This condition mentioned
in Section 23 is only referable as a
conduct of the transferee, prior to and
after execution of the deed of transfer.
Thus, challenge based on the ground
that there is no reference in the recital
of deed that transferee will provide
basic amenities and physical needs to
the transferor is of no consequence.”
43. In the case of Subhashini vs.
District Collector and Others8, the legal
proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge
in the Radhamni's case cited supra has been
approved by the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court.
44. In the case of Palanimuthu vs. The
Principal Officer, Maintenance
Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal
and Others9, the learned Single Judge of this
8 2020 SCC Online Ker 4080
9 MANU/TN/2011/2024
Court (SMSJ), considered the very same issues.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the recent case of Urmila Dixit cited supra
interpreted Section 23(1) of the Act to hold that
express condition in the deed may not be required
and non-maintenance of a senior citizen per se
would result in invoking the implied condition for
which such gift or settlement deed has been
executed by the senior citizen out of love and
affection, which is relatable to human conduct.
Thus, all other judgments of the High Courts
running counter to the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit's case
denuded to lose its status as precedent.”
VI. Discussions:
65. The Revenue Divisional Officer has recorded the statement of
the Senior citizen and the appellant, and formed an opinion that various
transactions occurred in the family and the Senior citizen has executed
settlement deeds in favour of other sons and daughters. However, the
complaint has been filed only against the appellant and therefore, the
complaint was rejected. The District Collector also concurred with the view
taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. But the Writ Court considered the
facts and circumstances in the context and the spirit of the provisions under
the Senior Citizens Act. The interpretation adopted by the Writ Court is in
consonance with the provisions under the Senior Citizens Act. The condition
under Section 23(1) of the Act need not be expressed, if it is implied. It is
not as if the Senior citizen is receiving money for his maintenance. What is
contemplated under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, is physical
needs, love, care and medical attendance. In the absence of protecting
these needs as contemplated under Senior Citizens Act, the objectives will
be defeated. Therefore, it is not as if the cases under the Senior Citizens
Act must be dealt with merely for grant of maintenance in terms of money.
Beyond payment of money as monthly maintenance, the medical
attendance, physical needs, basic amenities and other facilities, for the well
being of the Senior citizen are to be protected. The settlement deeds or gift
deeds are executed without any monetary consideration. In all such
settlement deeds, the usual terms stipulated at the instance of the
document writer or advocate, who prepared the document are that, the
settlement deed is executed out of love and affection and for the better
future of the transferee. While so, the consideration would be natural love
and affection and that being the consideration, the normal expectation of a
transferor is that he/she will be taken care of at their old age and till their life
time. This being the expected human conduct the welfare legislation namely
Senior Citizens Act is to be interpreted by adopting the principles of
purposive interpretation.
66. Recently, the statistics taken by various organizations are
alarming. In many states across the country, the senior citizens are
neglected and after sacrificing their life for the benefit of the family at their
old age they are in lurch. Many senior citizens are now staying in old age
homes or in Government homes, if they are poor, and even old aged
persons having money is unable to maintain themselves, on account of
vulnerable situation prevailing in the society. The senior citizen in the
present day society is a target by the criminals and therefore, protecting the
senior citizen is the duty mandated on the State under the Constitution of
India.
67. In the present case, the settlement deeds executed in favour of
the appellant expressly states that the senior citizen due to love and
affection and for better future executed the settlement deeds. The ground
that the senior citizen has given complaint only against the appellant is not
the ground to reject the complaint by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the
District Collector. Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act states maintenance of
parents and senior citizens. Sub section (1) enumerates that “a senior
citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself or his own earning
from and out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make
application under Section 6 in cases,
1. Parent or grand parent against one or more of his children not being
minor.”
68. Therefore, the senior citizen has got a choice to file a complaint
against one of the son or daughter. The very purpose of the section is that
any one of the son or daughter may not be in a position to maintain the
senior citizen. Contrarily one son may be in a better position to maintain and
in his favour the senior citizen would have executed settlement deed,
denying equal right to other sons or daughters. On account of various family
circumstances and other mitigating circumstances, the Act contemplates
that the senior citizen may file a complaint against one or more of his
children. When the Act permits, the senior citizen to file a complaint against
one son, leaving behind other daughters or sons, on the said ground, no
complaint shall be rejected and the Tribunal and the appellate authority has
to decide the issues on merits and based on the actual situation in which the
senior citizen is placed.
69. However, the Writ Court considered the factual scenarios in
entirety along with the grievances of the senior citizen and made a finding
that under Section 4 of the Act, the complaint is entertainable and the
rejection of the complaint by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the
appellate authority are running counter to Section 4 of the Act.
70. The Writ Court further made a findings that the children
defending their case merely on the ground that they are willing to provide
food and shelter, cannot be considered as a ground for the purpose of
sustaining the Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen. The
requirement of the provisions are to be complied in its real spirit and in the
event of any doubt, the Authority Competent is empowered to cancel the
Settlement Deed or Gift Deed, as the case may be, in order to protect the
normal life of senior citizen. The possibility of maintaining the senior citizen
in the context of strained relationship is to be looked into. Therefore, mere
statement or affidavit filed before the Courts stating that the son or daughter
will maintain the senior citizen would be insufficient and the Courts in
application of its mind has to consider the practicality of the issues as a
whole for the purpose of declaring the document as null and void. The
striking balance require that the life and dignity of the senior citizen is
protected. That being so, the best option for the authorities and the Courts
are to annul the settlement or gift deed rather than believing such
statements made after arising of the disputes and when the parties are in
strained relationship. Therefore, the approach of the Writ Court is balanced
and in consonance with the legislative intent and spirit of the Act. When the
right to life and dignity is a basic and constitutional right, the Courts cannot
adopt a midway path, which may result in miscarriage of justice.
VII. Conclusion:
71. The facts of the present case reveal that the relationship
between the senior citizen and the appellant is strained. The senior citizen
executed the settlement deeds by expressly stating that due to love and
affection and for the better future of the appellant, the settlement deeds
were executed. Therefore, the reason mentioned in the settlement deed
which is implied would be sufficient to comply with the conditions stipulated
under Section 23(1) of the Act. Love and Affection and considering the
better future of the transferee is the consideration and the condition implied
under Section 23(1) of the Act and therefore, non maintenance of senior
citizen would entitle the senior citizen to file a complaint and in such
circumstances, the settlement deed is liable to be declared as void.
72. The discussions in the aforementioned paragraphs would be
sufficient for the purpose of arriving an irresistible conclusion that the relief
granted by the Writ Court in favour of the senior citizen is in consonance
with the constitutional principles and in accordance with the provisions of
the Senior Citizens Act. Thus, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.)
01-04-2025
GD
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.R. Srinivasan
S/o. K. Raju, No.23/13, Madhavaram
High road, 2nd Lane, Perambur,
Chennai - 011.
2.The District Collector
Office of the Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai - 001.
3.The District Revenue Officer
Office of Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai - 001.
4.R. Geetha
D/o. Srinivasan, W/o. P. Rajakumar,
No.45, Baaba Nagar, 10th Street,
Villivakkam, Chennai - 049.
5.Sumathi Dcruz
D/o. Srinivasan, W/o. John Dcruz,
No.15/20, Mathiazhagan Street,
Periyar Nagar, Vyasarpari, Chennai -
6.P. Rekha
D/o. Srinivasan, W/o. Pallavarajan,
No.18, Kaviam Street, Sivam Nagar,
Periya Kuppam, Tiruvallur - 001.
7.S. Sathish Kumar
S/o. Srinivasan, Res. at No.7, Sri
Ram Nagar, First Street, Vyasarpadi,
Chennai - 039.
8.S. Mohanraj
S/o. Srinivasan, Res. at No.7, Sri
Ram Nagar, First Street, Vyasarpadi,
Chennai - 039.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gd
Pre- Delivery Judgment
made in
01.04.2025
