The Madras High Court recently clarified that only a senior citizen who has transferred property through a gift or settlement deed with a specific condition for maintenance can seek its cancellation under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while deciding a writ petition filed by a man named Karuppan, quashed the Sub-Collector’s order cancelling a 1997 settlement deed executed by the petitioner’s father.
The Court observed that as per the scheme of the Act, it is only a senior citizen, who can submit an application and such a senior citizen must be the transferor of the property through a gift, settlement, etc. Hence, except a transferor, no other person can maintain an application under Section 23(1) of the Act before the Authority concerned. Therefore, an application submitted by Karuppan’s mother to cancel the deed was found to be not maintainable.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Quashes Blanket Vehicle Pass Mandate for Madurai Murugan Conference
The case originated from a dispute involving a property that Karuppan’s father had settled in his favour. After the father's demise, Karuppan's mother filed an application under the Senior Citizens Act alleging neglect and lack of care by her son. Acting upon her complaint, the Sub-Collector ordered the cancellation of the settlement deed.
Challenging this, Karuppan argued that the original deed was unconditional and irrevocable, and his father had not reserved any right to cancel it. He also contended that the application filed by his mother, who was not the executant of the deed, should not have been entertained by the authority. The Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the cancellation, stating that depriving parents of love and care could justify such action under the Act.
The High Court, however, took a firm view on the necessity of a specific, written condition in the deed. “From the above discussions, this Court has observed that love and affection is not an aspect touching upon the consideration involved in the said settlement deed and that it is, at best, a motive for the settlor to gift/settle the subject properties,” said Justice Venkatesh.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Begins Legal Review of Copyright Claim Against Nani’s HIT 3 Film
Quoting the Supreme Court’s interpretation in multiple judgments, the Court stressed that Section 23(1) requires an explicit condition of maintenance to be included in the transfer deed. A mere assumption or implication cannot serve as the basis for cancellation. The judgment explained that the term “specific condition” must be understood as “precise, definite, and express”—not inferred from context or relationships.
The Court further noted the settled legal position that a transfer without an express condition cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the transferee failed to maintain the transferor. It rejected the contrary view taken in some earlier High Court decisions, holding that they were inconsistent with binding Supreme Court rulings.
Justice Venkatesh also emphasised, “Courts cannot rewrite a statutory provision when the words used by the legislature are plain and unambiguous.” The judgment criticised interpretations suggesting that “love and affection” could serve as an implied condition for maintenance, calling such readings a virtual rewriting of Section 23(1).
Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Sub-Collector’s cancellation order, and directed the authorities to reverse any encumbrance entries made pursuant to that order. The settlement deed dated February 6, 1997, was thus restored.
This judgment reiterates the limited scope of Section 23(1) and reinforces that only the transferor senior citizen can invoke the cancellation provision—and only when the deed contains an express clause requiring maintenance.
Case Title: Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4540 of 2022
Date of Judgment: June 19, 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Counsel for Petitioner: Mrs. V. Srimathi for Mr. Vishnu
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. Velu, Additional Government Pleader
