M.RAJAPANDIAN Vs. MINOR V.MANOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, who is the grandfather of the 1st respondent herein, had executed a gift deed in his favour, registered as Document No.825/2020 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sayalkudi, of a property comprised in Survey Nos.202/5 and 202/13B at Sayalkudi, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. In the recitals to the document, it is stated that in consideration of the love and affection towards his grandson and since he had been fulfilling all the duties and taking care of his grandfather, the gift deed is executed. However, the appellant herein had made an application before the 2nd respondent under Sec. 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking for cancellation of the gift deed, predominantly on the ground that his son R.Veemarajan/father of the 1st respondent had failed to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to him. Through an order dtd. 10/5/2022, the 3rd respondent had cancelled the gift deed dtd. 7/9/2020. When the 1st respondent had challenged the cancellation order before the 2nd respondent by way of an appeal, the same was rejected on the ground that, as per Sec. 16(1) of the Act, a senior citizen alone could file an appeal against the cancellation order. Under these circumstances, the 1st respondent had challenged the cancellation order dtd. 10/5/2022 before the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.16588 of 2022. The learned Single Judge, through an order dtd. 8/8/2024, had found that there are no recitals in the gift deed that the transferee should provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and in the absence of such a condition, the gift deed cannot be questioned under the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge is put under challenge in this intra- Court appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and submitted that in view of the dictum laid down in this case, the gift deed, which does not incorporate the pre-condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs, cannot be ordered to be cancelled under Sec. 23(1) of the Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) has been distinguished in a subsequent judgment in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2. According to him, the facts in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra), where the gift deed was made by the mother in favour of her son, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in hand, wherein the gift deed was made by the grandfather to the minor grandson. He also placed reliance on two revenue documents, whereby patta stood in the name of the appellant herein and since he possessed other properties by which he could maintain himself, the provisions of the Act will not apply.