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
