Took parents' property but not taking care of them? Trouble ahead for you

A Madras high court judgment has sounded warning bells for children taking property from their mother and father and then abandoning them in old age.As per a ruling of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan’s bench of Madras HC, such family members could have to return the received property.The “property” would mean not just immovable assets, but fixed deposits (FDs) and jewellery as well.The judge, while allowing a widow’s petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSCA), directed her married daughter to return her share of the FDs of Rs 1.5 crore along with the jewellery she had taken from her mother after her father’s demise.The court rejected the argument made by the daughter, Padmavathi, that her mother, LV Sarojini, was receiving a family pension, that she still held fixed deposits worth Rs 20 lakh, and that she was under the custody and maintenance of Padmavathi’s brother and thus does not need any maintenance from her.Sarojini had challenged an order passed by the Thothukudi District Collector, who had dismissed her appeal in October 2022. In this appeal she had challenged the sub-collector’s order (first level forum for such grievances) who too had dismissed her original complaint in July the same year.Both authorities had simply directed the daughter to take care of her mother.The Madras HC order holds great significance in the light of increasing cases of children abandoning aged parents after receiving considerable wealth from them. medium nocaption118838777The caseTwo FDs – Rs 80 lakh in Kovilpatti Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan company and Rs 90 lakh in Sattur Branch of Port City Benefit Fund Limited – were transferred to Sarojini upon her husband Lingaswamy’s demise.Sarojini’s son LV Muralidharan and daughter Padmavathi signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and divided the family’s properties equally between the two, including the FDs, and undertook to pay the interest earned on the FDs to their mother.Sarojini alleged that soon after, Padmavathi stopped paying interest to her. As mentioned earlier in this explainer, Sarojini lodged a complaint under the MWPSC Act with the Sub-Collector, who dismissed it, after which she approached the District Collector in appeal, who dismissed it too.She challenged these orders before the HC in 2023 via a writ petition and pleaded that she was bedridden and though she was living with her son, she was struggling to pay her medical expenses.As per MWPSC Act, “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment.The Sub-Collector’s order, upheld by the Collector, said that since Sarojini was receiving a family pension and was under the custody and maintenance of her son, she did not require any maintenance from the daughter.It was also held that Sarojini had failed to produce any proof to show that her jewellery, FDs and other properties were taken by the daughter “fraudulently.”Padmavathi’s lawyers relied on a December 2022 Supreme Court judgment which said that a gift deed in favour of an heir by a parent can be revoked only if conditions prescribed in law for revocation of the deed were specifically mentioned in that deed. medium nocaption118838639The court orderJustice Ilanthiraiyan rejected all the arguments made on Padmavathi’s behalf, including the reliance on December 2022 SC judgment.The judge ruled that it must be presumed that a senior citizen transferring the property expects continuation of the care and love from the beneficiary even after the execution of the settlement deed in the same manner as prior to the execution of the settlement deed.The most relevant part of MWPSC Act in this case is Section 23 which allows transfer of property to be declared void.This section says that the transfer of property by a senior citizen can be declared void if the receiver of the property fails to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. “The said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void,” the section reads.Section 23 also says that the property transferred can be revoked only if the receiver of the property has not taken it after paying something and/or the receiver is told that he is supposed to pay maintenance but fails to do so.The judge took note of the fact that by taking advantage of the emotionally dependent senior citizens, relatives often grab properties on the pretext of providing emotional support.“The condition referred under section 23 has to be understood based on the conduct of the settlor (senior citizen) and not with reference to the specific stipulation in the deed of transfer. Therefore, it is sufficient if the settlee (receiver) breached the promise given to the settlor at the time of the execution of the settlement deed.” medium nocaption118838712Welfare legislationThe judge observed that the daughter had – through the MoU with her brother – agreed to pay interest earned from the FDs back to her mother but failed to keep the commitment. Hence, she violated the undertaking given in the MoU.The judge also relied on a Supreme Court judgment of January 2, 2025 in a case related to MWPSC Act, where the court had held that a beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally in consonance with the objectives of the concerned law. “The beneficial legislation must be in line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the legislative purpose. It must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views,” the two-judge SC bench had ruled.On whether FDs and jewellery could be counted as “property” under the MWPSC Act, the judge relied on the definition clause of the law which says – “property” means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property and ruled that FDs and jewellery are a part of the term “property”. medium nocaption118845782Read another TOI+ exclusive: Gifting property to children? Do not make this mistakeIllustrations: Varun Vashishtha/AI