In a significant ruling aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of senior citizens, the Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal by **Urmila Dixit**, a senior citizen and mother, setting aside a gift deed executed in favor of her son, **Sunil Sharan Dixit**. The judgment reversed the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reinstating the earlier orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court.
Background:
* The appellant, Urmila Dixit, had executed a **gift deed dated 9 September 2019** transferring her property to her son.
* A **promissory note** was allegedly executed by the son on the same day, affirming his commitment to care for his parents. This was disputed by the son as fabricated.
* Alleging ill-treatment and complete breakdown of relations, the appellant approached the **Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 22 and 23** of the **Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007**, seeking cancellation of the deed.
Lower Courts’ Rulings:
* The Magistrate and Collector both ruled in favor of the mother, cancelling the gift deed.
* The Single Judge of the High Court upheld this view, criticizing the son’s conduct and affirming the intent of the welfare legislation.
* However, the Division Bench later reversed this decision, stating that since the gift deed lacked a **specific maintenance clause**, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 23.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Court, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized:
* The **beneficial nature** of the 2007 Act, aimed at ensuring maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.
* That **interpretation of such welfare legislation must be liberal and purposive**, not narrow or technical.
* The existence of **two contemporaneous documents**—the gift deed and promissory note—indicated the expectation of maintenance.
* Failure to provide such maintenance justified **revoking the gift deed** under **Section 23(1)**.
The Court clarified that:
*Tribunals under the Act are empowered to order cancellation of gift deeds and restoration of possession.
* Section 23 must be read in context with the entire Act’s objectives, not as an isolated provision.
Judgment:
* The Supreme Court **set aside** the High Court Division Bench’s ruling.
* It declared the **gift deed void** and ordered that **possession of the property be restored to the appellant by February 28, 2025**.
* Directions were issued to the **State of Madhya Pradesh** to ensure compliance.
Impact:
This judgment reinforces the legal protection available to senior citizens under the 2007 Act and underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding their rights against familial neglect.