Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition challenging the cancellation of the gift deed in favour of the petitioner was declared void, the Singh Judge Bench of Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., held that the conditions for providing basic amenities and care to the senior citizen executing the gift deed need not be explicitly written and may be implied and thus, dismissed the petition.
Background
Respondent 2, who only had three daughters, transferred his land (disputed property) to his nephew, i.e., Petitioner 1, by executing a gift deed in his favour since he was the only male member of the family and had taken care of Respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 claimed that Petitioner 1 had assured them of good care till they are alive and continued to reside in the disputed property after executing the gift deed. Later, Petitioner 2, one of the married daughters of the respondents, also started residing in the disputed property.
Thereafter, both respondents, who are above 80 years of age, were allegedly subjected to torture and harassment by the petitioners. The petitioners allegedly made them withdraw Rs 30 Lakhs from the bank account of their deceased daughter, forced them to live on the first floor, hurled abuses at them, physically assaulted them, stopped their food, water and electricity, etc.
The petitioners were alleged of harassing and torturing the respondents, including threats to throw them out of their home. Aggreived, they lodged a police complaint against the petitioners under Sections 342, 420, 406, 424, 294, and 506, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, due to non-action by the police, their cruelty against the respondents only increased.
The respondents alleged that the object for which the gift deed was executed has been defeated by the actions of Petitioner 1, which were contrary to the terms of the gift deed. Additionally, possession had not been transferred, he had only been permitted to reside in the suit property till the death of the respondents. Therefore, they sought cancellation of the said gift deed and restoration of the possession of their home by filing an application under Sections 5 and 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act), before the Maintenance Tribunal.
The Maintenance Tribunal via the impugned order allowed the application by declaring the gift deed null and void and directing the petitioners to vacate. Against which, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition assailing the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, as well as the Maintenance Tribunal.
Issue & Analysis
Whether the order passed by the Authority and the Appellate Authority are legal and justified and do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?
At the outset, the Court perused Sections 3, 5, 7 and 23 of the Act, and stated that the composition and functioning of the Maintenance Tribunal should be in accordance with the Section 7 and Section 32(b) of the Act, 2007. The Court noted that in the present case, the Maintenance Tribunal was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) along with four other members. Thus, the petitioner’s challenge to composition of the Tribunal was rejected.
As regard to the legality of the order, declaring the gift deed null and void under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, the Court examined the law laid by the Supreme Court. The Court conceded that the condition to take care of the respondents throughout their lifetime is not expressly put down in the gift deed executed by them. However, the Court noted that the condition was implied and Petitioner 1 failed to discharge his obligations towards the respondents.
In this regard, the Court relied upon Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684, wherein the Supreme Court culled out two essentials 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.
Furthermore, in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787, the Court held that the beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views.
Thus, the Court held that the instant case satisfied the two conditions for attracting Section 23 of the Act.
The Court further held that there is no requirement for explicit written condition to invoke the provisions of the Section 23 to declare a gift deed as null and void, as a strict interpretation of beneficial legislations defeats its objective. The Court stated that “it is an implicit condition attached to this transfer of property by way of gift”, which was not fulfilled by the petitioner.
Additionally, after scrutinising the facts and the gift deed, the Court noted that sole reason because of which the gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner was due to the care, love and affection shown by him towards the respondents.
Consequently, the Court held that the Maintenance Tribunal had the jurisdiction to declare the gift deed as void, and therefore, the orders of Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal needed no interference.
Hence, the Court dismissed the petition, as the petitioner failed to show any illegality in the impugned orders.
[Ramkishna Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 87 of 2025, Order dated 20-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Akshat Tiwari and Sakshi Dewangan, Advocates
For the State: Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Government Advocate
For the Caveator: Advocate Vikrant Pillai