Madras High Court
M.Rajapandian vs Minor V.Manoj on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
2025:MHC:437
W.A.(MD) No.2739 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 28.01.2025
Pronounced on 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD) No.2739 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.18891 & 18893 of 2024
M.Rajapandian ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Minor V.Manoj,
Rep. by his Guardian/Father
R.Veemarajan
2.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in W.P.(MD) No.16588 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Aravinthan
for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 14
W.A.(MD) No.2739 of 2024
For R1 : Mr.T.Indrachithu
For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
The appellant herein, who is the grandfather of the 1st respondent
herein, had executed a gift deed in his favour, registered as Document
No.825/2020 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sayalkudi, of a property
comprised in Survey Nos.202/5 and 202/13B at Sayalkudi, Kadaladi
Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. In the recitals to the document, it is
stated that in consideration of the love and affection towards his
grandson and since he had been fulfilling all the duties and taking care of
his grandfather, the gift deed is executed. However, the appellant herein
had made an application before the 2nd respondent under Section 23(1) of
the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking for
cancellation of the gift deed, predominantly on the ground that his son
R.Veemarajan/father of the 1st respondent had failed to provide the basic
amenities and physical needs to him. Through an order dated 10.05.2022,
the 3rd respondent had cancelled the gift deed dated 07.09.2020. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the 1st respondent had challenged the cancellation order before the 2nd
respondent by way of an appeal, the same was rejected on the ground
that, as per Section 16(1) of the Act, a senior citizen alone could file an
appeal against the cancellation order. Under these circumstances, the 1st
respondent had challenged the cancellation order dated 10.05.2022
before the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.16588 of 2022. The learned Single
Judge, through an order dated 08.08.2024, had found that there are no
recitals in the gift deed that the transferee should provide the basic
amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and in the absence of
such a condition, the gift deed cannot be questioned under the Act. The
order of the learned Single Judge is put under challenge in this intra-
Court appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara
Vs. Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and
submitted that in view of the dictum laid down in this case, the gift deed,
which does not incorporate the pre-condition that the transferee shall
provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs, cannot be ordered
to be cancelled under Section 23(1) of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh
Chhikara's case (supra) has been distinguished in a subsequent
judgment in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2. According to him, the facts in Sudesh
Chhikara's case (supra), where the gift deed was made by the mother in
favour of her son, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in
hand, wherein the gift deed was made by the grandfather to the minor
grandson. He also placed reliance on two revenue documents, whereby
patta stood in the name of the appellant herein and since he possessed
other properties by which he could maintain himself, the provisions of
the Act will not apply.
4. Only on the ground that the gift deed did not incorporate the
condition for the transferee to provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs, the learned Single Judge had quashed the order of the
third respondent dated 10.05.2022. Apparently, the Writ Court applied
the ratio decidendi rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh
Chhikara's case (supra), which had clarified that two conditions are
mandatory to be incorporated in the recitals of the deed, in order to make
it voidable. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all
kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the
expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For
attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the
following two conditions must be fulfilled:
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.
13. If both the aforesaid conditions are
satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be
deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or
undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes
voidable at the instance of the transferor and the
Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare
the transfer as void.”
5. What has been provided for under Section 23(1) has been
explained in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had set forth the aforesaid twin conditions for the subjective
satisfaction of the Tribunal before the final orders are passed. We are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bound by the decision.
6. However, we are often confronted with cases of this nature,
wherein the transferor executes the gift deed out of pure love and
affection for the transferee or in consideration of the care and protection
being offered by the transferee for the transferor. In documents of these
nature, the transferor may consciously or without any intention, fail to
incorporate the pre-conditions set forth in Section 23(1) qua the
provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor.
7. The consequential question that arises is mere failure to
incorporate such a pre-condition would fail to attract Section 23(1) or
not? This question is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh
Chhikara's case (supra) itself, by holding that when an intention of the
transferor that the transferee would provide the necessary amenities and
physical needs is not specifically spelt out in the deed of conveyance, the
onus of proving such an intention is on the transferor to establish it
before the Tribunal. Following is the relevant portion of the judgment in
Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra):-
“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or
her property by executing a gift or a release or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In a recent decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had placed reliance on the decisions in Brahmpal Vs.
National Insurance Company reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512;
K.H.Nazar Vs. Mathew K.Jacob reported in (2020) 14 SCC 126;
Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. Vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
reported in (2024) 7 SCC 140; X2 Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2023) 9 SCC 433; S.Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Urban District and Others reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 and held that
the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, which must receive a liberal
construction in consonance with the objectives of the concerned Act and
that this Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the
remedies of the Act must be adopted. Urmila Dixit's case (supra) also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
makes a reference to Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra). However, the
facts between these two cases were distinguished and a final decision to
quash the gift deed was arrived at.
9. In line with the decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), holding
the act as a beneficial piece of legislation and to extend a liberal
interpretation, we shall now deal with the facts of the present case.
10. The entire case revolves around the gift deed dated 07.09.2020
executed by the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent. In the recitals of
the gift deed, the appellant had expressed his intention for gifting the
properties in favour of the 1st respondent, in the following manner:-
“cd; kPJ vdf;fpUe;J tUk;
md;gpdhYk; gphpaj;jpdhYk; ghrj;jpdhYk;
ePa[k; vdf;F njitg;gLk; midj;J
flikfisa[k; bra;J ghJfhj;J
tUtjhYk; cdJ vjph;fhy thH;f;if
eyKltpUf;f cdf;F Xh; Vw;ghL bra;J
itf;f ntz;Lbkd;w vdJ btFehisa
Miria ,j;jUznk g{h;j;jp bra;J
itf;Fk; bghUl;Lk;/
/////
ehd; vd; kdg;g{h;tkhd rk;kjj;Jld;
vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUg;gjhy; ,ij jpUj;jnth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
khw;wnth uj;Jr;bra;anth vdf;F
mjpfhuk; fpilahJ/ mg;go kPwpr;bra;jhYk;
mJ bry;yj;jf;fjy;y/”
11. As held in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra), the present gift
deed has also been executed in favour of the 1st respondent out of love
and affection without any expectation, as evidenced in the portion of the
recital extracted above. A careful reading of these recitals would indicate
that though the properties were gifted to the minor grandson, the
transferor had been referring to the care and protection being extended
by his son R.Veemarajan, who is the father of his minor grandson, who
was aged about 8 years at that relevant point of time. The transferor had
not only taken note of the love and affection he had for the transferee, but
had also equally considered the fact that the transferee has been
protecting the transferor by fulfilling all his duties.
12. It is needless to mention that had the 1st respondent failed to
discharge his duties and protect his grandfather, the gift deed may not
have been executed. Possibly, the appellant may have gifted the
properties to the 1st respondent with a fond hope that he would continue
to support and protect him in the same way, which existed at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
execution of the gift deed. In such situation, Sudesh Chhikara's case
(supra) had clarified that when such transfers are made out of love and
affection without any expectation and when it is claimed that the twin
conditions in Section 23(1) of the Act are attached to the transfer, the
existence of such conditions is required to be established before the
Tribunal.
13. In the instant case, when the appellant herein had made an
application under Section 23(1), seeking for cancellation of the gift deed,
the 3rd respondent had cancelled the same, without analysing this aspect.
As a matter of fact, there was no appearance of the 1st respondent during
the enquiry and the cancellation order came to be passed on the basis of
his written objections. We are of the view that the 3rd respondent herein
can be called upon to revisit the original proceedings to ascertain as to
whether the twin conditions prescribed in Section 23(1) exist in the
recitals of the gift deed, for which purpose, it would be necessary to
remand the matter back to the 3rd respondent herein.
14. We have passed this order, in line with the decision in Urmila
Dixit's case (supra), by giving a liberal interpretation to the objects of
the Act and also in accordance with the findings in Sudesh Chhikara's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the
existence of the twin conditions under Section 23(1) in a deed of transfer
requires to be established before the Tribunal. In view of such a decision,
the order of the learned Single Judge also requires to be set aside.
15. In the light of the above observations, the order of the learned
Single Judge passed in W.P.No.16588 of 2022, dated 08.08.2024, as well
as the order of the 3rd respondent herein dated 10.05.2022 made in
Pa.Moo.A2/1681/2022, are quashed. Consequently, the matter is remitted
back to the 3rd respondent herein for fresh consideration, who shall give
due opportunities to both the appellant and the 1st respondent herein and
pass a speaking order, in the light of the legal ratios discussed in this
judgment. However, all observations made by us with regard to the
possible existence of an intention of the transferor that the transferee
would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor, shall not be taken as a precedent and that the Tribunal shall
independently arrive at its own conclusion with regard to the
interpretation of the recitals in the gift deed dated 07.09.2020. Such final
orders shall be passed atleast within a period of three (3) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal
stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitions are closed.
[M.S.R., J] [A.D.M.C., J]
17.02.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking Order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
