2025 INSC 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. AND
HON’BLE SANJAY KAROL, JJ.)
URMILA DIXIT
Petitioner
VERSUS
SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No. 10927 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 720
of 2023)-Decided on 02-01-2025
Family, TPA
(A) Maintenance and
Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 23 - Gift deed –
Setting aside of -
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 - Appellant has that such an undertaking stands grossly
unfulfilled - It has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful
relations inter se the parties –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 that 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
- Unable to agree with the view taken by
the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation
- Impugned judgment liable to be set aside - Consequently, the Gift Deed dated
07.09.2019 liable to be quashed - Possession of the premises shall be restored
to the Appellant by 28.02.2025.
(Para 23 to 26)
(B) Maintenance and
Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 23 –
Interpretation of statute – Beneficial legislation – Held that the Act, 2007 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.
(Para 14)
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Karol J. :- 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 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 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[(2021) 6 SCC 512] ,
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. Jacob[(2020) 14 SCC 126] reiterated the above expositions and
stated that:
“11. Provisions of a beneficial
legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala
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)
10.
More recently, in Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance
Co. Ltd. [(2024) 7 SCC 140] ,
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) [(2023) 9 SCC 433], 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. [(2021)
15 SCC 730], 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.
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. [(1987) 2 SCC 278] 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. [(2014)
1 SCC 188] , 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[(2021) 2 SCC 324] .
17.
While issuing a slew of directions for the protection of senior citizens
in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India[(2019)
2 SCC 636], 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 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.
(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 2022 SCCOnline SC 1684 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.
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.
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.
------