Transfer Of Property Can't Be Declared Void U/S 23 Senior Citizens Act In Absence Of Clause Obligating Transferee To Maintain Transferor: Madras HC
story
The Madras High Court has recently held that though the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act provides for declaring certain property transfers as void, a settlement of property cannot be cancelled unless it fulfills the conditions of the Act.Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act states that,Where any senior citizen who, after...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madras High Court has recently held that though the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act provides for declaring certain property transfers as void, a settlement of property cannot be cancelled unless it fulfills the conditions of the Act.
Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act states that,
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.
While dismissing a litigant's plea seeking directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider his application, Justice R Subramanian observed that since the settlement deed did not contain a clause imposing an obligation on the settlee or transferree to maintain the settlor or transferor, the authority could not entertain an application for cancelling the settlement deed.
There are two essential pre-conditions namely, the document should have been executed after the coming into for the Act and it should contain clause imposing an obligation on the settlee or transferree to maintain the settlor or transferor. Evidently, such clause is absent in the document in question therefore, the authority under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot entertain an application for cancellation of the document.
The court thus noted that the very application before the RDO to cancel the deed as per the Maintenance Act was not maintainable
At the same time, the court also gave liberty to the litigant to approach the appropriate authority for seeking maintenance from his son. Further he was also given liberty to approach the Civil court for cancellation of the settlement deed.
Case Title: S Selvaraj Simpson v The District Collector and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
Case No: WP No.32650 of 2022