Introduction:
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, examined the scope and application of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the Act") in cases where senior citizens transfer property through a gift deed on the condition that they will be cared for by the transferee. The Court provided clarity on the rights of senior citizens and the obligations of transferees in such situations.

Facts in a Nutshell
The appellant Urmila Dixit executed a gift deed in favour of her son Sunil Sharan Dixit on 9 September 2019 transferring property on the condition that he would care for her. A promissory note was signed on the same day reinforcing this obligation. Alleging neglect and emotional abuse, the appellant sought revocation of the gift deed under Section 23 of the Act. The Collector, District Chhatarpur, revoked the gift deed, a decision that was upheld by the appellate authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Chairman, Chhatarpur, and the Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench reversed these rulings by interpreting Section 23 narrowly, focusing on the absence of explicit conditions in the gift deed mandating care for the transferor. It disregarded the promissory note as external evidence and ruled that Section 23 could not apply without such explicit terms, viewing it as a standalone provision and prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Findings of the Supreme Court and conclusion
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Division Bench erred in narrowly interpreting Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and in disregarding the relevance of the promissory note. The Supreme Court held that Section 23 of the Act must be interpreted in light of its overarching purpose to safeguard the welfare of senior citizens. It emphasized that conditions for maintenance need not be explicitly stated within the gift deed if accompanying documents establish such intent. The Court held that the promissory note executed on the same day as the gift deed was a relevant and integral document to establish the intent of the transfer. It confirmed that the note reinforced the obligation of the transferee to care for the senior citizen, which aligned with the objectives of the Act. A liberal interpretation ensures the Act’s objectives are met, empowering Tribunals to void transfers where care obligations are neglected. Reinstating the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s decision, the Supreme Court quashed the gift deed and directed restoration of possession to the appellant by 28 February 2025. The Court ruled that the Act’s purpose was to ensure the welfare of senior citizens and that Section 23 must be interpreted broadly.¹

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar