Protection of Life and Property of Senior Citizens: What the Law Says Under Section 23 Of Senior Citizens Act

This article is written by Atishay Jain, a former UPSC aspirant and a core member of the ApniLaw team. With a deep interest in public welfare laws and senior citizen rights, the article presents clear and practical insights on complex legal provisions like the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. For any personal queries or suggestions, feel free to reach out to us through our official channel.

Protecting the property of senior citizens is vital. As they age, many face financial abuse and illegal property claims. Safeguarding their assets ensures security, dignity, and peace of mind. It also prevents exploitation and supports their independence.

What Is Section 23 Of The Senior Citizens Act?

1. Transfer Becomes Void if Amenities Are Denied. If a senior citizen gifts or transfers property after this Act begins, and the transfer depends on the condition that the new owner must provide basic amenities and physical needs, the law protects the senior citizen. If the transferee fails or refuses to provide these needs, the law considers the transfer as done through fraud, coercion, or undue influence. In such cases, the senior citizen can ask the Tribunal to declare the transfer void.
2. Maintenance Right Still Enforceable on Transferred Property. If a senior citizen has the right to maintenance from an estate, and part of that estate gets transferred, the senior citizen can still claim maintenance. This right applies if the transferee received the property as a gift or knew about the maintenance claim. However, if the transferee paid for the property and didn’t know about the claim, they are not liable.
3. Others Can Act on Behalf of Senior Citizens. If the senior citizen cannot enforce these rights, any recognized organization under Section 5(1) Explanation can act on their behalf.

What Are The Consequences of Not Meeting Conditions in Property Transfers Under Section 23?

1. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 23 protects senior citizens who transfer property under the condition of receiving care. If the transferee fails to meet this condition, serious legal consequences follow.
2. If a senior citizen transfers property with the understanding that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so, the law treats the transfer as fraudulent, coerced, or made under undue influence. The senior citizen can approach the Tribunal, which may declare the transfer void.
3. The Tribunal has the authority to cancel the transfer and restore the property to the senior citizen. This applies when the agreed condition, care and maintenance is violated.
4. Even if the condition is not clearly written in the transfer document, the Tribunal can infer it. A mutual understanding or expectation of care is enough, if there is proof that the transferee broke this obligation.
5. If the property is sold or transferred to someone else, the right to maintenance still applies. This enforcement is valid if:

• The new transferee had prior notice of the senior citizen’s rights.

• Or the transfer was made without consideration (a gift).

What Is The Ruling On Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit?

1. Urmila Dixit bought a property on 23 January 1968. On 7 September 2019, she gifted it to her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit. The Gift Deed required the son to provide for her peaceful life and basic care. Alongside, he signed a promissory note agreeing to care for her until her death. It also stated that failure to do so would return the property to the mother.
2. On 24 December 2020, Urmila filed a complaint under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She alleged neglect and sought cancellation of the Gift Deed.
   The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur, canceled the deed. The Collector upheld this decision after an appeal. The son then challenged the order in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Court Judgement

1. A Single Judge dismissed the petition, supporting the authorities’ decision. However, the Division Bench later reversed it. They claimed Section 23 was a standalone clause and said the Gift Deed lacked clear conditions for maintenance.
2. Urmila Dixit then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed that the 2007 Act is beneficial legislation. It said the law must be interpreted liberally to safeguard senior citizens. Tribunals under the Act have full authority to cancel transfers and restore possession if care obligations are not met.
3. The Court cited the earlier ruling in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District to support this. The Supreme Court rejected the Division Bench’s narrow interpretation. It ruled that Section 23 is not independent but integral to the Act’s objective.

The Court found that two conditions were satisfied:

• The property transfer had a care-related condition.

• The son failed to meet that obligation.

The Court emphasized that technical readings must not defeat the purpose of protective legislation.
It restored possession of the property to the mother and ordered compliance by 28 February 2025.

Other Popular Ruling On Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors.

The Court restored an eviction order against a son and daughter-in-law who occupied the self-acquired property of a 75-year-old father without consent.
The Tribunal and Patna High Court had initially ordered eviction, which was overturned by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court reinstated the eviction, emphasizing that Tribunals under the Act have authority to order eviction when necessary for the protection of senior citizens.

Conclusion

Securing senior citizens’ property is a social and legal responsibility. It helps prevent fraud and protects their rights. By taking timely action, we can ensure a safe and respectful life for our elders.