Property Transfer Can Be Cancelled for Failure to Maintain Elderly Parents Even Without Express Maintenance Clause in Transfer Deed; Failure to Care for Elderly Parent Justifies Cancellation of Property Transfer and Eviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Nakshatra Singh and Others v. The Deputy Commissioner and Others
Date of Judgment: 08 October 2026
Citation: CWP No. 20761 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to a senior citizen need not necessarily be expressly incorporated in the transfer deed for invoking Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Such a condition must, however, be specifically pleaded and established through the material on record. Where a property transfer is made on an assurance of care and maintenance, subsequent neglect or failure to fulfil that obligation can justify declaring the transfer void.
The Court further held that financial independence of the senior citizen does not defeat the protection available under Section 23(1), which encompasses care, attention and dignity beyond mere monetary maintenance. A subsequent transfer by the original transferee cannot survive once the underlying transfer is declared void. Eviction may also be ordered where necessary to protect the senior citizen.
Summary: The dispute concerned a residential property in Chandigarh originally owned by a 97-year-old woman, who transferred a 50% share to her son in 2012. The son subsequently transferred the same share to his son. Alleging neglect, harassment and failure to provide care, the senior citizen approached the Maintenance Tribunal, which declared both transfer deeds void and directed eviction. The Appellate Authority upheld the order.
The petitioners challenged these findings principally on the ground that the original transfer deed contained no express condition of maintenance, relying upon Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi. They also asserted that the senior citizen was financially independent and had been adequately cared for.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court distinguished Sudesh Chhikara, observing that the Supreme Court required the maintenance condition to be pleaded and proved, but did not mandate its express incorporation in the transfer instrument. Relying upon Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 INSC 20, the Court reiterated that the beneficial provisions of the Act must receive a purposive interpretation.
Significantly, the senior citizen had specifically pleaded that her son assured her of care in old age, and the son neither filed a reply nor contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Court found the assurance sufficiently established from the unrebutted pleading and surrounding circumstances. It also declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of neglect and harassment, observing that photographs of family occasions and occasional payment of medical expenses did not establish continuous care.
The Court further upheld the cancellation of the subsequent transfer in favour of the grandson, applying the principle that a transferee cannot convey a better title than he possesses. The eviction direction was sustained as a protective measure, while questions of title pending before the civil court were expressly left open.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Maintenance Tribunal’s order dated 11 May 2026 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 16 June 2026, thereby sustaining the cancellation of both transfer deeds and the direction for eviction.
Considering their prolonged residence, the Court granted petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 90 days to vacate, subject to furnishing an undertaking within two weeks against interference with the senior citizen’s residence or creation of third-party rights. In default, the authorities were permitted to secure vacant possession forthwith.