CHENNAI: In a significant judgment on the applicability of the provisions of the Maintenance and Care of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, that allows cancellation of settlement (gift) deeds by parents over lack of care by children, the Madras High Court has ruled that only the person who had transferred the property can seek its cancellation.
The order passed by Justice N Anand Venkatesh also said that for the deed to be cancelled for noncompliance, it must have a specific condition that mandates care for the senior citizen concerned.
The court made the ruling while quashing an order of the Kallakurichi sub-collector who had cancelled the deed executed by the father of the petitioner, Karuppan, in 1997 transferring certain properties to his son.
The sub-collector issued the order, in 2019, under Section 23 (1) of the Act based on the application submitted by Karuppan’s mother seeking cancellation of the deed as her son was not offering her care.
As per the petitioner’s case, the property was gifted by his father who later died and his mother cannot seek cancellation of the deed as she is not the executant of the transfer deed.
“Hence, except a transferor, no other person can maintain an application under Section 23(1) of the Act before the authority concerned. As a consequence, the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner is not maintainable,” he said.
RDO should not have annulled settlement deed, says HC judge
“The second respondent (RDO) ought not to have entertained the application and passed orders,” the judge added.
He also noted that the petitioner’s father did not reserve any right in the said settlement deed to revoke the same in future on any contingencies. Referring to the grounds for seeking cancellation that the mother was deprived of love and affection from her son and was not taken care of, the judge said love and affection is not an aspect touching upon the consideration involved in the settlement deed and that it is, at best, a motive for the settlor.
“This court has given a finding that Section 23(1) of the Act deals with a situation where the transfer of property is accompanied by a specific condition to maintain and provide for the needs of a senior citizen. The same cannot be either implied or assumed,” he affirmed.
He criticised and disapproved of the ruling given in certain judgments of the Madras HC to the effect that deeds can be cancelled even if the conditions are not explicitly made by the transferor.
The judge, while quashing the order of the Kallakurichi RDO, ordered restoration of the 1997 deed and directed the registration department authorities to remove the entries in the encumbrance, if made pursuant to the cancellation of the deed.