Supreme Court of India
URMILA DIXITversusSUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 20
- Decided
- 1 January 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- C T RAVIKUMAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Gift Deed was void under Section 23 because the maintenance condition was not fulfilled, and the Tribunal is empowered to order eviction and restore possession to the senior citizen.
Summary
The appellant, a senior citizen, had executed a Gift Deed in 2019 transferring her property to her son on the condition that he would provide her maintenance, a condition also reflected in a contemporaneous promissory note. She later alleged that the son failed to fulfill this obligation and that relations had broken down, prompting an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which was initially upheld by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and the High Court Single Judge, resulting in the Gift Deed being declared void. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed that decision, holding that Section 23 is a standalone provision and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order possession. The Supreme Court examined the purposive and liberal construction required for beneficial legislation, citing precedents such as Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and interpreting the two essential conditions of Section 23. It concluded that the Gift Deed was indeed subject to a maintenance condition which was not complied with, and that the Tribunal is empowered to order eviction and restore possession to protect senior citizens. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Division Bench judgment, quashed the Gift Deed, and restored possession of the premises to the appellant, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal's order granting relief under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- Whether Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision limiting the Tribunal's jurisdiction to merely ascertain the existence of a maintenance condition.
- Whether a Tribunal under the Act may order eviction and transfer of possession to protect a senior citizen.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Gift DeedCancellation of the Gift DeedTransfer of propertyVoidSubject to the conditionMaintenancePromissory noteBreakdown of peaceful relationsGift Deed quashedTransfereeTransferorDonorDoneeBasic amenitiesBasic physical needsSenior citizensBeneficial legislationLiberal constructionStrict viewStatement of object and reasons of the ActIntent of the legislatureElderly citizensEvictionPossession of the premises/property
Judgment
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 105 : 2025 INSC 20
Urmila Dixit
v.
Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024)
02 January 2025
[C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of
the Tribunal granting benefit of Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to the
Appellant-mother.
Headnotes†
Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 – s.23 – Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances – Appellant-mother sought cancellation of the
Gift Deed transferring her property to the respondent-son
subject to the condition that he provides for her maintenance –
Appellant alleged that the conditions in the promissory note
and the gift deed w.r.t her maintenance were grossly unfulfilled
and there was a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the
parties – Gift Deed in question, if ought to be quashed:
Held: Yes – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr. [2022] 17
SCR 876, expounded two conditions for attracting the application
of Section 23(1), (a) the transfer must have been made subject to
the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) the transferee
refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the
transferor – In the present case, the conditions for the well-being
of the senior citizens were not complied with – Single Judge of
the High Court and the tribunals below rightly held the Gift Deed
to be cancelled – View of the Division Bench which set aside the
judgment of the Single Judge and took a strict view of a beneficial
legislation, not agreed with – Impugned judgment set aside – Gift
Deed quashed – Possession of the premises be restored to the
Appellant. [Paras 21, 23, 26]
* Author
106 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 – s.23 – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal – If can order
eviction and transfer of possession of the property – Impugned
order observed that Section 23 is a standalone provision of
the Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only to find out
whether the condition in the gift deed or otherwise contained a
clause providing for basic amenities and whether the transferee
has refused or failed to provide them and there is no other
jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal – Correctness:
Held: Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary
and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen – It
cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession
to be transferred – This would defeat the purpose and object of
the Act to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for
the elderly – The relief available to senior citizens under Section
23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons
of the Act, that elderly citizens of the country, in some cases, are
not being looked after – It is directly in furtherance of the objectives
of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights
promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of
being maintained by the transferee. [Paras 24, 25]
Interpretation of Statutes – Maintenance and Welfare of the
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Beneficial legislation –
Interpretation – Rules for – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Brahmpal v. National Insurance Company [2020] 9 SCR 504 :
(2021) 6 SCC 512; K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob [2019] 14
SCR 928 : (2020) 14 SCC 126; Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 140; X2 v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [2022] 7 SCR 686 : (2023) 9 SCC 433; S. Vanitha v. Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors. [2020] 12 SCR
1057 : (2021) 15 SCC 730; Vijaya Manohar Arbat Dr v. Kashirao
Rajaram Sawai and Anr. [1987] 2 SCR 331 : (1987) 2 SCC 278;
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. [2013] 10 SCR 259 :
(2014) 1 SCC 188; Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India [2019] 12
SCR 30 : (2019) 2 SCC 636; Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and
Anr. [2022] 17 SCR 876 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 – relied on.
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2
SCC 324 – referred to.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 107
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
List of Acts
Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007.
List of Keywords
Gift Deed; Cancellation of the Gift Deed; Transfer of property; Void;
Subject to the condition; Maintenance; Promissory note; Breakdown
of peaceful relations; Gift Deed quashed; Transferee; Transferor;
Donor; Donee; Basic amenities; Basic physical needs; Senior
citizens; Beneficial legislation; Liberal construction; Strict view;
Statement of object and reasons of the Act; Intent of the legislature;
Elderly citizens; Eviction; Possession of the premises/property.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2022 of the High Court
of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WA No. 1085 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
V. Mohanna, Sr. Adv., Sarvam Ritam Khare, Ms. Jayasree
Narasimhan, Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Akash Shukla, Ms. Bhavya Pande,
Gokul Athithya, Kushagra Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Madhavi Deewan, Sr. Adv., Uday Prakash, Nakul Dev,
Ms. Harshita, S K Giri, Ramjee Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol J.
1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated
31.10.2022 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
in Writ Appeal No. 1085 of 2022, whereby the judgment and order
dated 02.08.2022 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 11796 of 2022 was set aside.
2. The Single Judge of the High Court had, in turn, affirmed the judgment
dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur in
108 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case No. 91/Appeal/2021-22 and the judgment dated 27.09.2021
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Chairman, Chhatarpur
in Case No. 98/B-121/2021-22, allowing the application filed by the
Appellant herein under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare
of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “the Act”)
seeking setting aside of Gift Deed dated 09.09.2019.
Factual Matrix
3. The Appellant herein is the mother of the Respondent (son). The
subject property was purchased by her on 23.01.1968. On 07.09.2019,
the Appellant executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Respondent
wherein it has been stated that the donee (Respondent) maintains
the donor and makes provision for everything. This deed came to
be registered on 09.09.2019. Allegedly, on the same day, a vachan
patra / promissory note is executed by the Respondent wherein it
has been stated that he will take care of the Appellant till the end
of her life and if he does not do so, the Appellant will be at liberty
to take back the Gift Deed. The Respondent, before this Court, has
alleged this vachan patra to be fabricated.
4. Thereafter, on 24.12.2020, the Appellant filed an application under
Sections 22 and 23 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Chhatarpur, alleging that she and her husband were attacked by
the Respondent for further transfer of property and that the love and
affection between the parties has completely ended. She prayed for
setting aside the Gift Deed in question. This application came to be
allowed, and the Gift Deed, transferring the property of the Appellant
to the Respondent, was declared null and void. The Respondents
preferred an appeal against this order, which came to be dismissed
vide order dated 25.04.2022.
5. The Respondents, aggrieved, filed a Writ Petition bearing number
11796/2022 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur.
The Single Judge affirmed the orders of the Courts below while
observing that the Respondents had not approached the Court with
clean hands and had failed to serve their parents who are senior
citizen. The orders of the Courts below were held to be well-reasoned
and in consonance with the Act.
6. A Writ Appeal was preferred thereafter, assailing the order of the
Single Judge which has been allowed vide the impugned order. The
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 109
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
Division Bench of the High Court, while setting aside the judgments
of the Ld. Single Judge, vide the impugned order, made the following
observations:-
6.1 Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision, and the function
of the Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the
gift deed or otherwise contains a clause providing for basic
amenities and whether the transferee has refused or failed
to provide them. There is no other jurisdiction vested with the
Tribunal.
6.2 No condition is there in the gift deed dated 09.09.2019 for
maintenance of the transferor.
6.3 The argument relating to the affidavit dt. 07.09.2019, cannot be
accepted. If the intention of the parties was such, the gift deed
should have had a clause to the same effect.
Issues for Consideration
7. We have heard Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the Appellant,
and Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Respondents. We have also perused the written submissions filed by
both sides. The issue which arises for consideration of this Court is
whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the
Tribunal, granting benefit of Section 23 of the Act, to the Appellant?
8. To answer the issue at hand, it is imperative for this Court to discuss
the rules of interpretation to be applied when interpreting a beneficial
legislation akin to the Act at hand. While dealing with certain provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court, in Brahmpal v. National
Insurance Company,1 observed that a beneficial legislation must
receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objectives that
the concerned Act seeks to serve.
9. This Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob2 reiterated the above
expositions and stated that:
“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be
construed with a purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala
1 [2020] 9 SCR 504 : (2021) 6 SCC 512
2 [2019] 14 SCR 928 : (2020) 14 SCC 126
110 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food (1995) 4
SCC 341] The Act should receive a liberal construction to
promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant
v. ESI Corpn. (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
573 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar
(2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] Also, literal
construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation
has to be avoided. It is the Court’s duty to discern the
intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such
an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a
purposeful or functional interpretation [Bharat Singh v.
New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre (1986) 2 SCC 614 : 1986
SCC (L&S) 335]
…
13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief
that the statute was designed to remedy should first be
identified, and then a construction that suppresses the
problem and advances the remedy should be adopted.
[Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia
(2015) 10 SCC 161 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55] It is settled
law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare
legislations should be given strict construction [Shivram
A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik (1984) 1 SCC
588] . It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai
Shantram Kowshik [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai
Shantram Kowshik (1984) 1 SCC 588] that the exclusionary
provisions in a beneficial legislation should be construed
strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal
object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on
deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the
Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council [Minister
Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land
Council, 2008 HCA 48: (2008) 237 CLR 285], Kirby, J.
held that the principle of providing purposive construction
to beneficial legislations mandates that exceptions in such
legislations should be construed narrowly.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 111
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
10. More recently, in Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,3 this Court held the definition of a consumer
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to include a company or
corporate person in view of the beneficial purpose of the Act.
11. While considering the provisions of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, this Court in X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi),4 reiterated
that interpretation of the provisions of a beneficial legislation must be
in line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the legislative
purpose. Furthermore, it was stated that beneficial legislation must
be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to
take two views.
12. It is in the above background that we must proceed to examine the Act.
The statement of object and reasons of the Act indicates the purpose
behind the enactment, as relied upon by this Court in S. Vanitha v.
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.,5 is:
“Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid
stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due
to withering of the joint family system, a large number
of elderly are not being looked after by their family.
Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed
women are now forced to spend their twilight years all
alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack
of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that
ageing has become a major social challenge and there is
a need to give more attention to the care and protection
for the older persons. Though the parents can claim
maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive.
Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and
speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”
13. The preamble of the Act states that it is intended towards more
effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and
senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution.
3 (2024) 7 SCC 140
4 [2022] 7 SCR 686 : (2023) 9 SCC 433
5 [2020] 12 SCR 1057 : (2021) 15 SCC 730
112 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view
of the challenges faced by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act
must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies
of the Act must be adopted.
15. Before adverting to the provisions of the Act, we must be cognizant
of the larger issue that this case presents, i.e., the care of senior
citizens in our society. This Court in Vijaya Manohar Arbat Dr v.
Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Anr.6 highlighted that it is a social
obligation for both sons and daughters to maintain their parents
when they are unable to do so.
16. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr.,7 this Court observed
that when a case pertaining to maintenance of parents or wife is
being considered, the Court is bound to advance the cause of social
justice of such marginalised groups, in furtherance of the constitutional
vision enshrined in the preamble. Recently, this exposition came to
be reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another.8
17. While issuing a slew of directions for the protection of senior citizens
in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India,9 this Court had highlighted:
“3. The rights of elderly persons is one such emerging
situation that was perhaps not fully foreseen by our
Constitution-framers. Therefore, while there is a reference
to the health and strength of workers, men and women, and
the tender age of children in Article 39 of the Constitution
and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old
age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of
undeserved want in Article 41 of the Constitution, there
is no specific reference to the health of the elderly or to
their shelter in times of want and indeed to their dignity
and sustenance due to their age.
4. Eventually, age catches up with everybody and on
occasion, it renders some people completely helpless
6 [1987] 2 SCR 331 : (1987) 2 SCC 278
7 [2013] 10 SCR 259 : (2014) 1 SCC 188
8 [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324
9 [2019] 12 SCR 30 : (2019) 2 SCC 636
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 113
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
and dependent on others, either physically or mentally
or both. Fortunately, our Constitution is organic and this
Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted
in path-breaking developments in law, particularly in the
sphere of social justice, which has been given tremendous
importance and significance in a variety of decisions
rendered by this Court over the years. The present petition
is one such opportunity presented before this Court to
recognise and enforce the rights of elderly persons—rights
that are recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution as
understood and interpreted by this Court in a series of
decisions over a period of several decades, and rights that
have gained recognition over the years due to emerging
situations.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Keeping in mind the beneficial intention of the statute and the above
expositions, we now proceed to consider the issue at hand.
19. Section 23 of the Act reads:
23. Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances.—
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement
of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise,
his property, subject to the condition that the transferee
shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical
needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or
fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the
said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been
made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and
shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by
the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part
thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance
may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee
has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but
not against the transferee for consideration and without
notice of right.
114 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights
under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his
behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation
to sub-section (1) of Section 5.
20. In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr.,10 this Court refused to
grant the benefit of Section 23 in the absence of an averment that
the transfer in question was subject to a condition for maintenance
of the parents. It was observed:
“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property
by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of
his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after
the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the
contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and
affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when
it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section
(1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of
such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Furthermore, in Sudesh (supra) for attracting the application of
Section 23(1), the following essentials were expounded:
(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition
that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor; and
(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs to the transferor.
22. Adverting to the facts at hand, we find that there are two documents
on record. One, a promissory note dated 07.09.2019 which records
that the promisor (Respondent) shall serve the Appellant and her
husband till the end of their life, and in the absence of him fulfilling
such obligation, the subsequent deed can be taken back by the
Appellant. Second, the Gift Deed dated 07.09.2019 also records a
similar condition, i.e. the donee maintains the donor, and the former
makes all necessary provisions for the peaceful life of the Appellant-
donor. Both these documents were signed simultaneously.
10 [2022] 17 SCR 876 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1684
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 115
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors.
23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking
stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it
has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations
inter se the parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned
in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the
beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render
otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the
High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed
to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-being of the senior
citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the
view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of
a beneficial legislation.
24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations
made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal
to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this
Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it
is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior
citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted
under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot
order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and
object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive
remedies for the elderly.
25. Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is
Section 23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considered
view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is
intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the
Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being
looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act
and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when
they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained
by the transferee.
26. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order with the
particulars as described in paragraph one of this judgment, is set
aside. Consequently, the Gift Deed dated 07.09.2019 is quashed.
In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the Appeal
is allowed. Possession of the premises shall be restored to the
Appellant by 28.02.2025.
116 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
27. The Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the
concerned authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh who shall
ensure compliance. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Gift Deed"Sign in to search