Maintenance Tribunals Cannot Invoke Section 23 Senior Citizen Act To Cancel Settlement Deeds Lacking Express Maintenance Conditions: Kerala High Court

"The condition as required under Section 23(1) for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a Senior Citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous transfer." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 8, 2026, held that Maintenance Tribunals lack the jurisdiction to cancel a settlement deed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act), unless the document expressly contains a condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical needs of the transferor.

A bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim clarified that a mere reservation of life interest in a property does not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking the power of cancellation under the Act.

The dispute arose when the 4th respondent executed a settlement deed in 2013 in favour of his son (the late husband of the 1st petitioner), reserving only a life interest for his own residence. Following the son's death and the 1st petitioner's remarriage, the 4th respondent sought the cancellation of the deed before the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging the petitioners were illegally occupying the premises. The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the deed and the eviction of the petitioners, an order which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, asserting that the jurisdictional requirements of Section 23(1) were not met.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Section 23(1)

The primary question before the court was whether the Maintenance Tribunal could invoke Section 23(1) to set aside a settlement deed where the instrument lacked an express clause mandating the provision of basic amenities to the transferor. The court also examined whether the reservation of life interest constitutes a sufficient condition for the invocation of this summary power.

Court’s Observations on Statutory Conditions

The High Court emphasized that Section 23(1) of the MWPSC Act is a specialized provision that creates a legal fiction, deeming certain transfers as having been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence, but only upon the satisfaction of two cumulative conditions. First, the transfer must be subject to an express condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs. Second, the transferee must have refused or failed to provide such amenities. The Court noted that in the absence of these explicit conditions, the Tribunal has no authority to exercise summary jurisdiction.

Clarifying the Scope of 'Life Interest'

The Court underscored that the inclusion of a 'life interest' or a right to reside in the property is distinct from the statutory obligation to provide basic maintenance under Section 23. Quoting the Full Bench decision in Subhashini v. District Collector, the Court held that a mere reservation of life interest for residence or usufructs must be enforced through appropriate civil proceedings and cannot be interpreted as an implied condition for the summary cancellation of a deed under the Act. The court held that there can be no "implied condition" to assume jurisdiction where the text of the deed is silent.

"Section 23(1) does not come to the aid of a transferor seeking that remedy; that neither can Section 23(1) be considered to have interfered with the valuable rights of the transferee nor be taken as imposing any restriction on his/her right when there is a settlement made with reservation of life interest."

Rejection of Arguments on Maintainability

The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the death of the transferor and the subsequent transfer of the property to a third party. The Court rejected this, clarifying that unlike proceedings where a Senior Citizen seeks personal relief, a transferee whose property rights are affected by an erroneous Tribunal order has a constitutional right to challenge such an order under Article 226. The Court further observed that the hasty transfer of the property by the Senior Citizen to his grandson following the Tribunal's order could not validate an otherwise jurisdictionally void decision.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, thereby restoring the validity of the original settlement deed.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2026