Can Parents Cancel a Gift Deed for Neglect?

Ramti Devi, who was more than 80 years old, owned agricultural land in Village Basai, Tehsil and District Gurugram, Haryana. She executed a registered release deed, No. 18151, on November 14, 2008, in favour of her daughters. The daughters, including Sudesh Chhikara, became owners of a one-third share each.

The family relationship later soured. Ramti Devi claimed that her son and daughters were not maintaining her. She had already won two civil suits in which release deeds executed in her son’s favour were declared null and void. According to her case, her son Sunder and grandson Manish preferred appeals against those decrees, and during the pendency of the appeals they sold the property subject matter of the release deeds dated March 24, 2009 to a third party.

Ramti Devi then filed a petition under Section 23 of the 2007 Act before the Maintenance Tribunal. She asked the Tribunal to cancel the 2008 release deed to her daughters. The Tribunal, by its order dated May 22, 2018, held the release deed null and void and recorded that her children were not willing to take care of her. The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed that order on May 21, 2019. The Supreme Court reversed both.

Section 23(1) is not a general neglect remedy. It requires two conditions: the transfer must have been made subject to a condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee must have refused or failed to provide them. Only then is the transfer deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

The Supreme Court stressed that a parent often parts with property out of love and affection, without attaching any care condition. When a parent alleges that a condition existed, that condition must be established before the Tribunal. In Ramti Devi’s petition, the condition was not even pleaded. Her counter affidavit only said the daughter had no intention of taking care of her. No oral evidence was adduced. That gap was fatal.

This recent Supreme Court judgment on gift deed cancellation by parents shows that the Maintenance Tribunal cannot treat refusal to care as a substitute for proof of a statutory condition.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed Ramti Devi’s Section 23 petition. It set aside the Maintenance Tribunal’s order and the High Court’s confirmation.

The Court closed two loopholes:

• The Tribunal and High Court treated the children’s refusal to care as enough, but the Court said that skips the statutory precondition.
• The Court required the parent to plead and prove that the release was made subject to a care condition; a mere allegation of no intention to care is insufficient.

• Start with the registered deed itself—gift deed, release deed or settlement deed—and the mutation records showing its date and parties.
• Gather affirmative proof of the condition: a written recital, letter, email, witness statements, or earlier conduct showing that care was promised.
• Document the refusal or failure: medical bills, food and shelter arrangements, correspondence, and witness testimony.
• File the petition before the Maintenance Tribunal, typically the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, under Section 23; the biggest mistake is filing only because the child is neglectful without pleading and proving that care was a condition of the transfer.