Protecting Senior Citizens’ Rights: Supreme Court Cancels Gift Deed under Section 23 of the MWPSC Act

Case Background

The case arose when Urmila Dixit, a senior citizen and mother of the respondent, executed a gift deed in 2019 transferring her property to her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit. The deed mentioned that the son would take care of his parents and ensure their well-being. On the same day, a promissory note was also executed stating that if he failed to provide such care, the gift deed could be revoked.

However, after allegations of harassment and neglect, Urmila Dixit approached the authorities under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and Collector both ruled in her favor, setting aside the gift deed.

The son challenged this before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where a Division Bench overturned the lower orders, holding that Section 23 is a standalone provision and cannot be invoked unless the gift deed itself expressly contains a condition of maintenance.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court (Justices Sanjay Karol and C.T. Ravikumar) restored the SDM and Collector’s orders, making key observations:

1. Beneficial Legislation: The MWPSC Act is a social welfare law meant to protect elderly citizens. Such laws must be interpreted liberally and purposively rather than through a narrow lens.

2. Conditions for Section 23: For a transfer of property to be void:

   • The property transfer must have been subject to the condition of providing basic needs and maintenance.

   • The transferee must have failed to honor those conditions.

   In this case, the promissory note and the deed together clearly established such conditions.

3. Tribunal’s Powers: The Court clarified that tribunals under the Act can order eviction and possession transfer, as restricting them would defeat the very object of the Act.

4. Section 23 Not Standalone: The provision is directly linked with the Act’s objective—to ensure elderly citizens are not left destitute after transferring property.

Judgment and Outcome

The Supreme Court:

• Set aside the High Court’s order.

• Declared the gift deed null and void.

• Directed that possession of the property be restored to Urmila Dixit by 28 February 2025.

The ruling strengthens the position of senior citizens under Indian law, ensuring they cannot be deprived of property when care and maintenance commitments are violated.

Constitutional and Social Significance

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) extends to the elderly, ensuring they live with security and respect.

• The Court reiterated that both sons and daughters have a social and moral duty to care for their parents.

• This judgment affirms that the law will protect senior citizens from neglect, coercion, or misuse of their trust.

Conclusion

The Urmila Dixit judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the protective intent of the MWPSC Act. It emphasizes that the judiciary will not allow technicalities to defeat the welfare of senior citizens. By adopting a purposive interpretation, the Court has ensured that elderly parents who transfer property under the trust of care will not be left vulnerable to neglect or exploitation.

---