Only Senior Citizen Who Gave Property Can Cancel Gift Deed, Spouse Cannot: Madras HC

News18

25-06-2025

Last Updated:
Court rejected a mother's plea to cancel her late husband's property transfer to their son, holding she lacked legal standing under the Senior Citizens Act
The Madras High Court recently observed that as per the scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, only the senior citizen who has transferred the property can seek its cancellation under Section 23(1) of the Act. Third parties, including close family members like a spouse, cannot initiate such proceedings, it clarified.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized, 'Except a transferor, no other person can maintain an application under Section 23(1) of the Act before the Authority concerned." Court made it clear that the statutory right to seek cancellation of a gift or settlement deed lies exclusively with the senior citizen who executed the transfer.
A settlement deed was executed by petitioner Karuppan's father in his favour in 1997. Years after the father's death, Karuppan's mother approached the Sub-Collector in 2019, alleging that her son had failed to take care of her. Relying on Section 23(1) of the Act, she sought cancellation of the deed. The Sub-Collector allowed her request and annulled the deed, citing neglect. Karuppan's appeal against this was dismissed as infructuous after his mother passed away in November 2019.
Challenging the order of deed cancellation, Karuppan moved the high court, arguing that firstly, the deed had no clause requiring him to maintain his parents. Secondly, his mother was not the executant of the deed and had no legal standing to seek its cancellation.
Deciding in Karuppan's favour, the high court pointed out that for Section 23(1) to apply, three key conditions must be met: the transfer must be made by a senior citizen; it must be conditional upon the transferee providing basic amenities and needs; and such condition must be violated. Importantly, the deed must explicitly record this obligation.
Love and affection is not a legal consideration. A gift made out of love is not the same as one made subject to specific obligations, the court observed, drawing on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit.
The court further clarified that under the scheme of the Act, only the senior citizen who executed the transfer (in this case, the father) could have sought cancellation under Section 23(1). Since the mother was not the transferor, her application was legally untenable.
'The second respondent ought not to have entertained the said application and passed orders," the court opined.
Concluding that the 1997 settlement was absolute, irrevocable, and not conditional upon the son's care, the court quashed the 2019 cancellation order and directed the Sub-Registrar to restore the original deed in the land records.
First Published:
June 25, 2025, 14:20 IST