The court only stated the transfer of the property through donations, settlement or other transfer method, the court said.
The Madras High Court ruled on Thursday that income bodies could not take steps to abolish gifts, calling their powers under the maintenance and well -being of the parents and the Senior Citizens Act, if the father made a document but the mother submitted an application for cancellation or vice versa.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh decided that, according to the 2007 law scheme, only the transfer of assets through a gift, settlement or other transfer method could also maintain an application for cancellation if children could not maintain it according to the specific condition that was given in the reward itself.
“No other person can maintain the application pursuant to Section 23 (1) of the Act. As a result, the application submitted by the mother of the current petitioner is not maintained and the second opponent (Kallakurichi income division) was not to entertain and added orders,” he wrote.
The judgment was passed and at the same time allowed a written petition submitted by Karuppan of Kallkurichi against the RDO 15 February 2019 for the abolition of gifts executed in his favor in 1997.
Judge Venkates canceled the RDO order and ordered the substance to remove the burden on the assets not only because the request for cancellation was not filed by the bailiff, but also because the donation did not save any condition regarding the maintenance of parents.
The judge pointed out that at least five judges by the Madras of the High Court recorded a consistent view that parents could seek to abolish gifts only if they had a specific condition that children had to take care of them during old age failure.
A similar view was also captivated by Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts. On the contrary, the bench in Madras High Court was intrigued by the fact that the condition may not be explicitly listed in the gift list and that the maintenance of parents was an implicit requirement.
“It is well resolved that the courts cannot rewrite the statutory provision if the words used by the legislator are simple and unambiguous,” Judge Venkatesh said, stressing that the Supreme Court judgments relying on the division now say that the maintenance condition may not be explicit.
“This court carefully passed through the Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Dixit and in this decision is unable to find a single sentence/word that supports the theory of” anticipated conditions “proposed by the Bench Division of this court in the case of S. Mal,” Judge Venkatesh said.
The judge therefore, because the division’s bench did not mention the law correctly, decided that the gifts could not be canceled if the real estate was settled in favor of children, absolutely without any state to take care of the parents.
Published – June 19, 2025 21:28
