Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Sunday, October 18, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Family Law

Gift Deed Without Explicit Care Condition Cannot Be Voided Under Senior Citizens Act Section 23: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Maintenance Tribunal order that had declared void a son’s 2010 registered gift deed from his mother under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Following Sudesh Chhikara, it held that Section 23 applies only if the transfer carries an explicit condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so. This deed carried no such condition (paras 19, 21-24, 27).

Gift Deed Without Explicit Care Condition Cannot Be Voided Under Senior Citizens Act Section 23: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Pokar Ram v. Maintenance Tribunal cum Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.
2023/RJJD/003969
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1841/2019
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
23 February 2023
Bench
Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati
Relevant Acts & Sections
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Sections 23, 5
Final Outcome

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s 31.10.2018 order insofar as it voided the gift deed, any consequent Jamabandi entry and the 31.01.2019 appellate order. The mother may seek a remedy if Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance goes unpaid (paras 27-29). A special appeal, D.B. SAW/227/2023, has been filed.

Download PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. Section 23(1) needs a care condition in the transfer and the transferee’s failure to honour it; deemed fraud arises only from that breach (paras 14, 19).
  2. The transferor who invokes Section 23 bears the onus of showing that the transfer carried the condition (para 14).
  3. Without such a condition the deed could not be voided under Section 23, despite the alleged fraud (paras 15, 23).
  4. Vinod Sharma, an eviction case, was distinguished; after Sudesh Chhikara the respondents’ authorities did not assist (paras 18, 21-22).
  5. Orders voiding the deed without reasons for invoking Section 23 were set aside (paras 25-27).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner’s mother executed a registered gift deed of land in his favour on 07.09.2010 (para 3). Almost seven years later she applied to the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 5 read with Section 23 (para 20). On 31.10.2018 the Tribunal declared the deed void and directed the petitioner to pay her Rs. 5,000 a month; the District Collector dismissed his appeal (paras 3, 5.5, 26). He challenged only the cancellation: the deed contained no condition requiring him to provide basic amenities and physical needs (para 4). Her counsel alleged that the deed was obtained by fraud and that both sons had neglected her (paras 7.1-7.2).

Court's Findings

Section 23(1) requires a condition in the transfer that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee’s refusal or failure to provide them; only then is the transfer deemed to be made by fraud, coercion or undue influence and liable to be declared void by the Tribunal at the transferor’s option. The transferor must show the condition (para 14). Asked by the Court, the mother’s side conceded that the deed had no such condition, relying on fraud instead (para 15), and nothing on record showed one (para 16). A son is always bound to maintain his mother, but the application invoked Section 23, so both its conditions had to be met (para 17). The second condition depends on the first: without an explicit condition there is no deemed fraud (para 19). Applying Sudesh Chhikara, the Court found the respondents’ judgments of no assistance and distinguished Vinod Sharma as an eviction case (paras 18, 21-22). The deed was registered out of love and affection and carried no such condition (paras 23-24). Both orders gave no reason for invoking Section 23 (paras 25-26).

Legal Principle

A gift or other transfer by a senior citizen can be declared void under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 only if the deed contains an explicit condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so (paras 14, 19, 23).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 174/2021, decided on 06.12.2022
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 21, 22

    For attracting Section 23(1), the transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee must refuse or fail to provide them; such a condition is not necessarily attached to a transfer made out of love and affection, and its existence must be established before the Tribunal.

  2. Vinod Sharma v. Smt. Shanti Devi S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1936/2022, decided on 21.02.2022
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 18

    Relied on by the petitioner; distinguished because it concerned an order of eviction passed by the Tribunal, whereas this case concerned a gift deed declared null and void.

  3. Himmat Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sriganganagar & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ No. 36/2012, decided on 07.08.2018
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8, 22

    Relied on for the respondents for a wide reading of Section 23 as socio-beneficial legislation. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

View all precedents (10)
  1. Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (retd.) & Anr. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1007/2013 (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench), decided on 26.09.2013
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents on the object of the Act of 2007. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  2. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab C.W.P. 5117/2018 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), decided on 01.03.2018
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents on the object of the Act of 2007. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  3. Parmeshwari Devi and Anr. v. Appellate Authority-cum-District Collector Gazilka and Ors. C.W.P. No. 14740/2019 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), decided on 20.08.2019
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents on the object of the Act of 2007. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  4. Gurdeep Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Samana C.W.P. No. 13121/2016 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), decided on 29.11.2017
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents on the object of the Act of 2007. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  5. Sunny Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. C.M. No. 116699/2017 (Delhi High Court, Division Bench), decided on 03.10.2018
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents on the object of the Act of 2007. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  6. Shabeen Martin, W/o Williamsree Jayan v. Muriel, W/o Late Rejinold Beemello W.A. No. 1851/2016 (Kerala High Court, Division Bench), decided on 03.10.2016
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents for the view that a gift deed may be cancelled under Section 23 even without specific conditions in the transfer deed. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

  7. Ramesh @ Pappi v. Ishwar Devi and Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No. 483/2021 (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench), decided on 08.07.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9, 22

    Cited for the respondents for the view that a gift deed may be cancelled under Section 23 even without specific conditions in the transfer deed. Cited on behalf of the respondents; in light of Sudesh Chhikara the Court held that the judgments cited for the respondents did not render any assistance to their case.

Topics: Rights of Senior Citizens Reasoned Orders Cancellation of Gift Deed
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: February 23, 2023 Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt