2026High CourtLatestLegal

Gift Deed Void if Son Fails to Maintain Parents – Senior Citizens Act

In March 2023, it was agreed that the petitioner son had agreed to look after his parents – respondent nos.1 and 2, who, in turn, agreed to transfer the flat in his favour vide two registered Gift Deeds.

However, the relations had deteriorated compelling the parents to vacate the flat.   However, the builder of another flat, which was also gifted to the son, had refused to give possession.  As a result, the parents filed application under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for cancellation of the gift deeds.

Section 23 of the Act embodies the legislative recognition that transfers made by elderly parents in favour of their children or relatives are often motivated by love, affection and the legitimate expectation that they would be cared for in their advancing years. A plain reading of Section 23(1) shows that the Tribunal may declare a transfer void where two essential requirements are fulfilled, namely, (i) the property is transferred by the senior citizen subject to the condition that the transferee would provide the transferor with basic amenities and physical needs; and (ii) the transferee has refused or failed to discharge that obligation. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the statute creates a legal fiction by deeming the transfer to have been brought about by fraud, coercion or undue influence, thereby entitling the senior citizen to avoid the transfer. Examined in the light of the above statutory framework, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

The submission that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are financially independent or possess other assets is misconceived. The applicability of Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior citizen. Once the statutory conditions of Section 23 are satisfied, the transfer can be declared as void. Equally untenable is the Petitioner’s contention that the Yashashree flat was purchased from his own funds and that the Gift Deeds merely restored title to its true owner. These are bald assertions and contrary to Recitals of the Gift Deed. Such oral pleas cannot be accepted in view of the written document. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in proceeding on the basis of the admitted title of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Judgment dated 7.7.2026 of the High Court of Bombay (AS) in Writ Petition No.13629 of 2026 of Ashwin Ramesh Soni Vs.   Ramesh Bachaulal Soni and others

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“LD”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: LD does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. LD assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: LD does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. LD is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about LD, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between LD and you.