Case Summary: Smt. Varinder Kaur v. Smt. Daljit Kaur & Ors. (2025) | Neglect of Elderly Donor Justifies Revocation of Property Gift

This case deals with the interpretation of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”) concerning the power of authorities to declare a gift deed void when a senior citizen is not provided maintenance or basic amenities after transferring property.

Delhi High Court, in this intra-court appeal, upheld the cancellation of a gift deed executed by an elderly mother-in-law in favour of her daughter-in-law, emphasising that “love and affection” itself constitutes an implied condition under Section 23(1) for maintaining the senior citizen.

Title of the Case: Smt. Varinder Kaur v. Smt. Daljit Kaur & Ors.

Citation: LPA 587/2025, CM APPL. 58201/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judges: Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Judgment: 26th September 2025

Factual Background

Parties:

Appellant: Smt. Varinder Kaur, widow of Late Sh. Tajinder Singh Bakshi.

Respondent No. 1: Smt. Daljit Kaur, 88-year-old senior citizen and mother-in-law of the appellant.

Gift Deed:

• On 5 May 2015, respondent Daljit Kaur executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law, transferring ownership of certain immovable property situated at Janakpuri, Delhi.

Complaint before Maintenance Tribunal:

• Respondent filed an application under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the gift deed on the ground that the appellant had stopped maintaining her and subjected her to neglect, mental harassment, and deprivation of basic needs.

Tribunal’s Decision (20 December 2019):

The Maintenance Tribunal refused to cancel the gift deed, holding that Daljit Kaur had not established fraud or a breach of the conditions contemplated under Section 23. However, the Tribunal directed that:

• The appellant shall not collect rent from the property; and
• The local police should ensure the respondent’s safety by periodic visits.

District Magistrate’s Decision (26 July 2023):

• In an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, the District Magistrate reversed the Tribunal’s order and directed the Sub-Registrar to cancel the gift deed, holding that the daughter-in-law had failed to provide care and maintenance.

Single Judge’s Decision (14 September 2025):

• The Single Judge upheld the DM’s decision, finding sufficient material showing breach of the implied obligation of care.

The appellant then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 587/2025) before the Division Bench.

Appellant’s Arguments

Counsel for Smt. Varinder Kaur advanced the following contentions:

Strict interpretation of Section 23(1):

• The section applies only when the transfer is made subject to an express condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and needs to the transferor, and such condition is breached.
• The gift deed in this case contained no such condition, nor was any refusal to provide maintenance proven.

Absence of necessary pleadings:

• The senior citizen’s application did not allege that the deed was executed with any maintenance condition.
• Cancellation was sought on grounds of fraud and coercion, not for failure of care.

Precedent reliance:

• Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684: The Supreme Court held that the absence of a specific condition in the deed prevents invoking Section 23.
• Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan (1957): Statutes must be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the text; courts cannot infer conditions not expressed.
• Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (2002) 4 SCC 297 and Krishna Texport v. Ila Agarwal (2015) 6 SCR 284: Emphasised that clear statutory language leaves no scope for judicial addition.

Thus, the appellant argued that both the DM and the Single Judge erred by inferring implied conditions inconsistent with the express terms of the statute.

Respondent’s Arguments

Counsel for Smt. Daljit Kaur contended that:

Implied condition of care:

• A gift deed executed by an elderly mother-in-law in favour of her daughter-in-law inherently implies that the donee will provide maintenance, love, and support. Such transfers are rarely commercial; they rest on affection and moral duty.

Evidence of neglect and abuse:

Respondent had placed on record several letters and complaints showing denial of maintenance, threats, and ill-treatment:

• Letter dated 8 July 2015: Alleged deprivation of clothes, medicines, and personal items.
• Letter dated 25 August 2015: Alleged mental torture and misappropriation of jewellery and money.
• Letter dated 14 May 2016: Stated that the daughter-in-law rendered her “helpless and homeless” after obtaining the gift.

Precedents supporting broader interpretation:

• Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 23 should be interpreted liberally to fulfil the Act’s objective and that possession can be restored to senior citizens if necessary.
• Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Collector, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1031: Bombay High Court held that an express clause of maintenance is not mandatory—courts may infer it from the relationship and circumstances.
• Mohamed Dayan v. District Collector (Madras HC, 2023): Held that “love and affection” itself constitutes an implied condition of maintenance.

Hence, even in the absence of express recital, the deed could be annulled if the transferee breached her moral and legal obligation to care for the transferor.

Issue for Determination

• Whether, in absence of an express condition in the gift deed requiring maintenance, a senior citizen can invoke Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to have the deed declared void on the ground that the transferee failed to provide basic amenities and care.

Decision

The Division Bench held that:

1. Existence of Implied Condition: The gift deed was executed in contemplation of care and maintenance in old age; hence, an implied condition existed under Section 23(1).
2. Failure to Provide Basic Needs: The appellant’s conduct and the respondent’s letters established failure to meet basic amenities and physical needs.
3. Jurisdiction and Legality: The District Magistrate had rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 16 to direct cancellation of the deed, and the Single Judge’s affirmation of that order required no interference.
4. Appeal Dismissed: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Legal Principle Evolved

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed a progressive and humanitarian interpretation of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, holding:

“For attracting the provisions of Section 23(1), it is not necessary that the deed expressly contain a condition for maintenance; such condition may be implied from the relationship and surrounding circumstances. A gift made by a senior citizen out of love and affection inherently carries the expectation of care, and failure to provide the same empowers authorities to annul the transfer.”

Conclusion

The judgment in Smt. Varinder Kaur v. Smt. Daljit Kaur & Ors. is a significant reaffirmation of the beneficial and social-welfare purpose underlying the Senior Citizens Act. The Delhi High Court recognised that the bond of love and affection itself imposes a moral and legal duty of care, and when that duty is breached, the law steps in to restore the elderly’s dignity and security.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the District Magistrate’s cancellation of the 2015 gift deed and the Single Judge’s order upholding the same.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams