In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that senior citizens have the right to revoke property transfers made to their children or close relatives if they are neglected in their old age, even if no explicit conditions were mentioned in the original transfer deed.

A division bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and K Rajasekar dismissed an appeal filed by S Mala, the daughter-in-law of the late S Nagalakshmi, challenging the cancellation of a property settlement deed, news agency PTI reported.

Nagalakshmi had initially transferred her property to her son, Kesavan, believing that he and his wife would take care of her in her final years. However, after Kesavan’s death, Mala allegedly neglected her, prompting the elderly woman to seek redress from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in Nagapattinam.

After considering statements from all parties, the RDO annulled the settlement deed, a decision that was later upheld by the court.

The bench emphasized that under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, senior citizens have legal protection when they transfer property with the expectation of care and support. If the recipient fails to fulfil these obligations, the law allows the senior citizen to approach authorities to revoke the transfer.

The court noted that transfers from elderly parents to children or relatives are often made out of love and affection, and this emotional bond forms an implicit condition of care, even if not explicitly stated in the deed. In such cases, if the senior citizen is neglected, they can invoke the law to nullify the transfer.

In Nagalakshmi’s case, the court observed that she was 87 years old at the time of filing the complaint and had been entirely abandoned by her daughter-in-law.

The bench ruled that her decision to transfer property solely to her son, while excluding her three daughters, indicated an expectation that he and his wife would provide for her. Since this expectation was not met, the authorities were justified in cancelling the settlement deed.

The court further highlighted that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have upheld the principle that an implied condition of care and maintenance is sufficient for invoking Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, if a beneficiary fails in their duty of care, the property transfer can be annulled.

Reaffirming the legislative intent behind the law, the bench concluded that the RDO’s decision to revoke the settlement deed was in line with the spirit and objectives of the Senior Citizens Act, ensuring justice for elderly individuals facing neglect from their dependents.