S.23 Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Cancels Settlement Deed Executed In Favour Of Son After He Failed To Look After Aged Parents
Upasana Sajeev
10 Oct 2022 1:30 PM IST
Moved by the plight of an old couple, the Madras High Court recently upheld the judgement and decree of the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in favour of their son, after the court was convinced that the son failed to look after the aged parents.Even if the deed is considered as a settlement deed by virtue of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act the same has to be declared...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
Moved by the plight of an old couple, the Madras High Court recently upheld the judgement and decree of the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in favour of their son, after the court was convinced that the son failed to look after the aged parents.
Even if the deed is considered as a settlement deed by virtue of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act the same has to be declared void in as much as the plaintiff has failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon him under the deed by ignoring the medical needs of the parents.
Interpreting the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Justice PT Asha observed as under,
The very object of the Maintenance Act is to guarantee the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The Act enjoins under Section 4(3) of the Act that the children are obligated to maintain his or her parent with such needs as the parent may require to enable them to lead a normal life.
In the present case, the plaintiff, eldest son of the defendant couple had moved the City Civil Court for a declaration that the deed of cancellation of the settlement deed was null and void. His parents had executed a settlement deed upon the condition that the plaintiff takes care of the defendants by giving food, clothing, medical facilities etc., till their lifetime.
The trial court dismissed the suit after observing that the plaintiff (son) had failed to comply with the conditions of the settlement deed and failed to take care if his parents in their time of medical emergency.
In appeal, the appellate court rejected the findings of the trial court. The appellate court observed that the property was immediately transferred upon execution of settlement deed and that the plaintiff had also transferred a sum of three lakh rupees to the account of his mother. Thus, the conditions were complied with. Aggrieved, the parents approached the High Court.
The parents submitted that the son had failed to take care of them or pay for their medical expenses when they were admitted in the hospital. Except paying three lakh rupees at the time of executing the settlement deed, no other financial assistance was provided by the son.
The son challenged the cancellation by submitting that under the settlement deed, the parents were given the right to receive rent from the suit property and this should be treated as the maintenance amount. He also submitted that the settlement deed could not be unilaterally cancelled as he had made a payment of three lakh rupees for its execution.
To this, the court noted that in addition to right to receive rent, the settlement deed clearly provided that the son was obligated to look after the parents.
The plaintiff has failed to see that in addition to the right to receive the rents till their lifetime, the deed also stipulated that the plaintiff should take care of the nutritional and health needs meaning the food and medical expenses of his parents. This obligation has been overlooked by the plaintiff.
The court noted that the case fell within the contours of Section 23 of the Maintenance Act which enables a parent or senior citizen to have a transfer made by them declared void. This provision was introduced to ensure that the children took care of the parents even after receiving property.
Taking into account the fact that senior citizens are lured to transfer their property with the promise of taking care of them and after having the property transferred, to abandon them, Section 23 has been introduced.
Since the Maintenance Act is a special statute, it will prevail over the general law. Further, Section 3 of the Act provides that the Act shall have overriding effect over other enactments.
Thus the court upheld the decision of the trial court and set aside the findings of the appellate court.
Case Title: Mr N Nagarajan v. Mr. Schekar Raj
Case No: SA No.602 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
Next Story