The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that for a senior citizen to seek cancellation of a gift deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the document does not need to contain an express condition that the recipient will provide for their basic needs and amenities. The court affirmed that such a condition can be implied from the nature of the transaction, especially when it is made out of love and affection.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an appeal filed by a daughter-in-law challenging the cancellation of a gift deed executed in her favour by her 88-year-old mother-in-law. The court upheld the orders of the District Magistrate and a single judge of the High Court, concluding that there was sufficient material to prove that the gift was made with the hope of being cared for and that the daughter-in-law had failed to do so.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an application filed by Smt. Daljit Kaur, an 88-year-old senior citizen, under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking the cancellation of a gift deed dated May 5, 2015. The deed transferred property to her daughter-in-law, Smt. Varinder Kaur.
The Maintenance Tribunal initially rejected Smt. Daljit Kaur’s plea on December 20, 2019, finding that she had failed to prove the conditions necessary for cancellation and had instead sought cancellation on grounds of fraud and cheating.
Aggrieved by this, Smt. Daljit Kaur filed a statutory appeal before the District Magistrate (DM). On July 26, 2023, the DM allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and directed the Sub-Registrar to cancel the gift deed. This order was challenged by the daughter-in-law, Smt. Varinder Kaur, in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on September 14, 2025. The present intra-court appeal was filed against this dismissal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant, Smt. Varinder Kaur, argued that Section 23 of the Act could only be invoked if the transfer document was executed with an explicit condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee subsequently failed to do so. Her counsel contended that Smt. Daljit Kaur’s application did not plead the existence of such a condition. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, which held that such a condition is a sine qua non for the applicability of Section 23(1).
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the respondent, Smt. Daljit Kaur, submitted that a gift deed between close relatives is implicitly executed with the condition of care, stemming from love and affection. It was argued that sufficient material, including several letters submitted to the Tribunal, established that after the gift deed was executed, the appellant’s behaviour changed drastically. These letters detailed how the appellant had failed to provide clothes, personal articles, and necessary medicines for high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes. Smt. Daljit Kaur also alleged that she was threatened with confinement and that her jewellery, cash, and important documents were stolen.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court framed the primary issue as whether there was enough material to conclude that the gift deed was executed subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and whether the appellant had refused or failed to provide them.
The bench observed that a strict interpretation of Section 23(1) would defeat the purpose of the beneficial legislation. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, which held that the relief under Section 23 is “intrinsically linked with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act” and must be interpreted to further its objectives.
The Court also referred to judgments from the Bombay High Court in Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Collector and the Madras High Court in Mohamed Dayan v. The District Collector. The Bombay High Court had noted that insisting on an express condition in the deed would “oust most of the transactions effected by senior citizens out of the purview of Section 23(1),” as a senior citizen gifting property to a child out of affection would unlikely insist on such a formal stipulation. The Madras High Court had held that “‘Love and Affection’ is an implied condition in the context of Section 23(1) of the Act.”
Applying these principles, the Delhi High Court held that while Smt. Daljit Kaur’s initial application did not specifically plead the condition, her subsequent letters and applications clearly established the circumstances. The judgment states, “…various letters and applications made by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal clearly, disclose and establish that the reason which impelled respondent no.1 to execute the gift deed in favour of the appellant was a promise and hope that appellant shall take care of the needs of respondent no.1…”
The Court concluded that the Tribunal must consider all relevant material, not just the contents of the initial application. The bench found that the material on record proved that the appellant had “completely failed to provide such care, amenities and physical needs to respondent no.1.”
Finding no error in the decisions of the DM and the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench concluded, “Having perused the order passed by learned Single Judge which is based on appropriate consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter including the material available on record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the judgment and order under appeal herein.”
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
