RAMKRISHNA PANDEY & ANR. V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS 2026:CGHC:3156:

DATE: 20/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Chhattisgarh

BENCH: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

FACTS:

The dispute arose from a gift deed dated 28.04.2016 executed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, senior citizens aged about 82 and 80 years, in favour of petitioner No. 1, who is their nephew. The gifted property comprised a residential house at Koni, Bilaspur. The gift was allegedly made out of love and affection, as the respondents had no son and petitioner No. 1 was the only male member of the family who had been taking care of them. The respondents continued to reside in the property even after execution of the gift deed, with the understanding that petitioner No. 1 would look after them during their lifetime. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2, the daughter of the respondents, also came to reside in the same house.

According to the respondents, after some time the petitioners subjected them to physical, mental, and emotional harassment, deprived them of basic necessities such as electricity, food, water, and medical assistance, forcibly confined them to the first floor despite their advanced age, and threatened to evict them. Allegations of financial exploitation and physical assault were also made, resulting in complaints to the police and district authorities. On these grounds, the respondents filed an application under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking cancellation of the gift deed and restoration of possession. The Tribunal allowed the application, which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

The principal issue before the High Court was whether the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were justified in cancelling the gift deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, despite the absence of an express condition in the gift deed obligating the donee to maintain the senior citizen donors, and whether the impugned orders suffered from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. It held that the gift deed was validly cancelled under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, and that the direction to the petitioners to vacate the disputed premises was lawful. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the authorities below and vacated the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners.

The Court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation, enacted to protect the dignity, security, and well-being of elderly persons. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, the Court clarified that for the purposes of Section 23(1), it is not mandatory that the condition of maintenance be expressly incorporated in the gift deed. Such a condition may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, the relationship between the parties, and their conduct before and after execution of the transfer. The Court found that the gift deed in the present case was executed based on the expectation that petitioner No. 1 would continue to care for the elderly donors, which constituted an implied condition attached to the transfer.

On facts, the Court noted that there was sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioners failed to provide basic amenities and subjected the respondents to neglect and cruelty. The findings of harassment, deprivation of essential services, and forced displacement of the respondents to an old-age home demonstrated a clear breach of the implied obligation of care. The Court further held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to declare the gift void on grounds of undue influence and failure of consideration under Section 23 of the Act. Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, the Court observed that it could not reappreciate evidence unless the findings were perverse or without jurisdiction, which was not the case here. Consequently, the cancellation of the gift deed and eviction of the petitioners were found to be legally justified and consistent with the object of the Act.

ANALYSIS:

This decision reinforces the settled position that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must be interpreted purposively to advance the protection of elderly persons rather than to uphold formalistic property rights. The High Court’s analysis clarifies that Section 23 does not require an express covenant of maintenance in a gift deed for its invocation. Instead, the existence of such an obligation can be inferred from the nature of the relationship, the circumstances under which the transfer was made, and the conduct of the parties. By recognising an implied condition of care arising from love, affection, and prior conduct, the Court aligned its reasoning with the Supreme Court’s approach in Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit, thereby preventing senior citizens from being rendered remediless merely because the obligation of maintenance was not reduced to writing.

The judgment also delineates the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters arising from fact-intensive welfare legislation. The Court declined to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual conclusions where the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal had acted within jurisdiction and on the basis of sufficient material. By upholding the cancellation of the gift deed on grounds of neglect, cruelty, and denial of basic amenities, the Court affirmed that property transfers motivated by trust and expectations of care can be revoked when that trust is abused. The ruling thus strikes a balance between property law principles and constitutional values of dignity and social justice, ensuring that statutory remedies under the Act are not diluted by technical objections.