The Madras High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, with regards to the cancellation of gift deeds. The court ruled that only the senior citizen who originally transferred the property has the legal standing to seek cancellation of the deed under this Act, and that a spouse or other family member cannot initiate such proceedings.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized that the statutory right to seek cancellation of a gift or settlement deed lies exclusively with the senior citizen who executed the transfer. The court underscored that, according to the Act's framework, only the senior citizen who transferred the property through a gift or settlement deed, and included a specific condition for their maintenance, can seek its cancellation under Section 23(1).

The ruling came while Justice Venkatesh was hearing a writ petition filed by a man named Karuppan, challenging an order from a Sub-Collector that cancelled a settlement deed from 1997 that had been executed by Karuppan's father. Karuppan's mother had approached the Sub-Collector in 2019, after the death of her husband, alleging that her son was not taking care of her and, relying on Section 23(1) of the Act, sought the deed's cancellation. The Sub-Collector granted her request.

In his appeal, Karuppan argued that the original deed lacked a clause requiring him to maintain his parents and that his mother, not being the deed's executor, had no legal right to seek its cancellation.

The High Court sided with Karuppan, stating that for Section 23(1) to apply, three 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 to the senior citizen; and this condition must be explicitly stated in the deed. The court found that Karuppan's mother's application was not maintainable as she was not the transferor of the property.

Furthermore, Justice Venkatesh clarified that love and affection do not constitute legal consideration in this context. A gift motivated by love is different from a gift made subject to specific obligations. The court drew upon Supreme Court decisions in cases such as Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit to support this view.

The judgment reinforces that Section 23(1) has a limited scope, and that only the senior citizen who made the transfer can invoke the cancellation provision, and only when the deed contains an express clause requiring maintenance. This clarifies that revenue authorities cannot cancel gift deeds under the Senior Citizens Act if the application is filed by someone other than the original transferor, or if the deed lacks a specific condition regarding the maintenance of the senior citizen.