Tribunals can restore property to abandoned parents, says SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are empowered to order the restoration of property to parents if their children fail to fulfil their obligation of care.

The ruling, aimed at safeguarding the rights of elderly citizens, came as the top court quashed a gift deed and restored property to a mother whose son had neglected her and his father after receiving the property.

A bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol emphasised that Section 23 of the 2007 Act must be interpreted in line with its statement of objects and reasons, which highlights the urgent need to protect elderly citizens from emotional neglect and lack of physical and financial support. “The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens. It must be interpreted to advance the remedies provided under it,” it underscored.

The court categorically ruled that tribunals could order eviction as well as restoration of the property, if deemed necessary for the protection of senior citizens. According to the bench, this power is inherent under Section 23 of the Act that provides for annulment of a gift deed in case of breach of terms by children or by any other person who receives the property.

“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,” held the court.

The judgment added that Section 23 cannot be construed as a “standalone” provision that must restrict its operation to the nullification of a gift deed. “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,” it declared.

The case pertained to a woman who had transferred her property to her son through a gift deed in 2019, subject to the condition that he would care for her and her husband. Despite a promissory note and explicit terms in the gift deed ensuring her well-being, the mother alleged gross neglect and a breakdown of peaceful relations.

Citing the essentials outlined in Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi and Another (2022) for invoking Section 23, the bench noted that the conditions for maintenance and care were unequivocally breached. It ruled that the gift deed’s cancellation by the tribunal and single judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court was valid, rejecting the division bench’s “strict” interpretation in March 2022, which failed to consider the beneficial nature of the legislation.

The judgment also referenced past rulings emphasising the constitutional obligation to protect senior citizens. It cited Ashwani Kumar vs Union of India (2019) and S Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner (2021), reinforcing the notion that the Act must be construed to uphold the dignity and rights of the elderly in the face of evolving societal challenges.

Declaring the son’s failure to fulfil his obligations a direct violation of the law, the Supreme Court set aside the division bench’s judgment and ordered the restoration of the property to the mother by February 28, 2025. The court directed the Madhya Pradesh authorities to ensure compliance with the order.