Madras HC: Senior Citizens Act Not Retrospective, Son Must Give Room

A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard Writ Appeal No.2101 of 2024 arising from a Letters Patent challenge to a Single Judge's order dated 14.06.2024 that had upheld the cancellation of a settlement deed and directed the appellant to surrender possession. The appeal arose from a dispute between a father and son concerning competing settlement deeds and subsequent proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order and modified the orders passed by authorities under the Act to the limited extent of directing that, on a written request by the father, the son must provide one room of residential accommodation in the house where he resided. The court held that Section 23 of the 2007 Act could not be given retrospective effect and applied only to transfers made after the commencement of the Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the law enunciated in the decisions, referred supra, it is luculent that the Act shall be applicable only to transfer of property after the commencement of the Act and it cannot be given retrospective effect." The court also noted the statutory duty of children towards parents, observing that "children owe an obligation to maintain their parents. Such obligation of the children to take care of parents is statutory and not only subject to being in possession of their property."

Background
The appellant was the son of the first respondent. The first respondent had executed a settlement deed dated 23.6.2004 in favour of the appellant; the appellant paid Rs.1,50,000 to his brothers for relinquishment of their rights as per the father's instructions. In 2016 the father filed O.S. No.3033 of 2016 seeking to declare the 2004 settlement deed null and void and to validate a purported revocation dated 28.1.2015; the civil court dismissed the suit on 20.10.2017 and the appellate court affirmed on 22.1.2019.

Thereafter the father lodged a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was dismissed on 19.7.2021. The District Collector affirmed that decision by order dated 27.4.2022. The father then filed W.P. No.19363 of 2022; the Single Judge allowed the writ on 14.6.2024, set aside the Collector's order, upheld the cancellation of the 28.1.2015 settlement deed and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession. The son filed the present Letters Patent appeal challenging that order.

The High Court considered the scope of Section 23 of the 2007 Act, which provides for declaring transfers void where a senior citizen transfers property on condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and the transferee fails to do so. The court relied on precedents, including a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Subhashini v. District Collector and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India, which held that Section 23 was prospective and did not operate retrospectively to disturb vested rights created prior to the Act’s commencement. The court noted that a challenge to the Delhi High Court decision was repelled by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16395 of 2024 by order dated 26.7.2024.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the Act could not be invoked to invalidate transfers executed in 2004. The court observed that the Revenue authority had earlier dismissed the complaint on the ground that the father received family pension and that he had remedies against his other children for maintenance. While recognising that the statutory duty of children to maintain their parents was independent of property possession, the court limited relief to a pragmatic direction: if the father submitted a written application seeking residential accommodation in the same house where the son resided, the son must provide one room. The court set aside the Single Judge's order and modified the orders passed under the Act accordingly. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.A.No.2101 of 2024
Case Title: M.M. Ramesh v. M.S. Manikavasagam & The District Collector
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Anandakumar for M/s. Thamizharasi Law Firm
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. Dhayanand for R1; Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, State Government Pleader, for R2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 136