Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors (2025)

Introduction 

This Supreme Court judgment is a significant ruling on the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court clarified that if a senior citizen gifts property with the expectation of care and that care is denied, the gift can be cancelled. The ruling emphasizes that such laws must be interpreted with compassion, keeping in mind the welfare of the elderly. 

Facts of the Case 

• The appellant, Urmila Dixit, is the mother of the respondent (her son). 
• She gifted her property to him on 09th September 2019, on the understanding that he would take care of her and her husband. 
• A promissory note (vachan patra) was also signed, stating that if the son failed to care for them, the gift could be revoked. 
• Later, the mother alleged ill-treatment and neglect, including an incident where she and her husband were allegedly attacked by the son. 
• She filed a petition under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act,2007 and the gift deed was declared void by the SDM and upheld by the Collector and Single Judge of the High Court. 
• However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, stating there was no clear maintenance condition in the gift deed. 

Issue Raised 

• Whether a senior citizen can get back property gifted to a relative when those relative fails to care for them, even if the gift deed doesn't explicitly state a maintenance condition. 

Court's Observations

• Beneficial Laws Must Be Interpreted Liberally 
  • The Court observed that laws meant to protect the elderly should be interpreted in their favour and not narrowly. 
  • Cited several previous cases supporting the purposive and liberal interpretation of social welfare laws. 
• Intent of the Law is to Protect Senior Citizens 
  • The Court referred to the Preamble and Objectives of the Act, which aim to provide a simple, speedy, and effective remedy to protect the elderly. 
  • Noted that many elderly people are left helpless due to the breakdown of joint family systems. 
• Gift Deed and Promissory Note Show Clear Intent 
  • The gift deed mentioned care by the son, and the vachan patra (promissory note) clearly stated the condition of maintenance. 
  • These documents together showed that the transfer was made with the expectation of being cared for. 
• Tribunal has Power to Cancel Gift and Restore Possession 
  • The Court rejected the Division Bench’s view that the Tribunal could not order return of possession. 
  • It held that under Section 23, Tribunals can cancel the gift and restore property to the senior citizen to protect their rights. 
• Gift Transfer Made Subject to Care Condition 
  • Applying its reasoning from Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022), the Court reaffirmed that if care is a condition of the gift and it is not fulfilled, Section 23 applies, and the gift can be declared void. 

Final Judgment 

• The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the Single Judge’s and SDM’s decisions. 
• The Gift Deed was quashed, and the property was ordered to be returned to the mother by 28th February 2025. 
• Authorities in Madhya Pradesh were directed to ensure compliance.