The Madras High Court has clarified that only a senior citizen who has transferred property with an express condition for maintenance can seek cancellation of the transfer under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observation while quashing an order passed by the Sub-Collector cancelling a settlement deed executed by a father, based on an application filed by the mother of the petitioner. The Court held that since the mother was not the transferor of the property, she was not legally entitled to file such an application under the Act.

“As per the scheme of the Act, it is only a senior citizen, who can submit an application and such a senior citizen must be the transferor of the property through a gift, settlement, etc. Hence, except a transferor, no other person can maintain an application under Section 23(1) of the Act before the Authority concerned,” the Court held.

The case arose from a petition filed by Karuppan, who challenged the cancellation of a settlement deed executed in his favour by his father. After the father's demise, Karuppan’s mother filed an application under the Senior Citizens Act, seeking cancellation of the deed on the ground that Karuppan had failed to care for his parents.

Karuppan contended that the settlement deed contained no clause reserving the father's right to revoke it, and thus could not be cancelled on such grounds. He also argued that the mother lacked legal standing to seek cancellation since she was not the settlor of the property.

The Additional Government Pleader argued that the deed was liable to be cancelled since Karuppan had allegedly failed to take care of his parents and had deprived them of love and affection. It was further submitted that an inquiry had been conducted before the cancellation order was passed.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that under Section 23(1), three essential conditions must be satisfied:

1. There must be a transfer of property by a senior citizen;

2. The transfer must be subject to a condition that the transferee provides for the senior citizen’s maintenance;

3. The transferee fails to honour this obligation.

The Court emphasised that such a condition must be explicit in the deed. It rejected the notion that “love and affection” could be treated as an implied condition for revocation of the transfer:

“Love and affection is not an aspect touching upon the consideration involved in the said settlement deed; it is, at best, a motive for the settlor to gift/settle the subject properties.”

Justice Venkatesh also disagreed with a contrary view taken by a division bench of the High Court that had interpreted “love and affection” as an implied condition. He declined to refer the matter to a larger bench, noting that the Supreme Court has already laid down binding law requiring explicit conditions for invoking Section 23(1).

Since the father had not reserved any right to revoke the settlement and no express condition for maintenance was mentioned, the Court held that the Sub-Collector’s cancellation order—based on the mother’s application—was without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

The Court allowed Karuppan’s plea and directed the authorities to reverse the entry made in the encumbrance certificate regarding the cancellation.

Case Title: Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector and Others
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. V. Srimathi for Mr. Vishnu
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. Velu, Additional Government Pleader