Properties Can Be Transferred Back To Elderly Parents If...: Supreme Court's Big Ruling
(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Supreme Court recently overturned a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision, emphasising the need for a liberal interpretation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the case of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit. The Supreme Court also overturned the ruling of Madhya Pradesh High Court that found no condition for the transferor's maintenance in the Gift Deed.
The Section 23 of the 2007 Act mentions that if a senior citizen transfers property to a person on a condition that he/she will provide basic amenities to them but the person fails to do so, the transfer can be deemed fraudulent and declared void if the senior citizen opts for such a decision.
Now the tribunals can order the transfer of property back to elderly parents, the Supreme Court said.
In its order, the Supreme Court said,“In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly,” Bar & Bench quoted the quote as saying. Also Read | Supreme Court overrules consumer forum's 30% interest rate cap on late credit card payments
"The preamble of the Act states that it is intended towards more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution...Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them,” the court said.
Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol the purpose of the 2007 Act to protect and support the elderly would be undermined without such power. Also Read | Supreme Court suggests judges be 'hermits' and keep away from social media, Facebook commentary. Here's why
The observation came to the fore during a dispute between one Urmila Dixit and her son Sunil Sharan Dixit over the transfer of a property back in 1968. Urmila had accused her son of mistreatment and neglecting her basic needs. She demanded cancellation of the deed.
MENAFN04012025007365015876ID1109054345
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.