Gift Deed Upheld, But Son Must Provide Residence and Maintenance to Mother: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a parent cannot automatically take back property gifted to a child under the Senior Citizens Act unless it is clearly shown that the transfer was made on the condition that the child would provide care and basic needs, and that such condition was later violated.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that a child’s duty to maintain a parent continues regardless of whether such a condition is written into the gift deed, and ensured protection of the mother’s right to residence and maintenance.

A Division Bench of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta upheld a Single Judge’s decision which had set aside an order of the Maintenance Tribunal that declared a property transfer void in favour of a mother.

The High Court held that the statutory conditions required to invalidate the gift deed were not satisfied.

However, it modified the relief by directing that the mother be allowed to live in the property for the rest of her life and that the son must provide for her food, clothing, medical needs and pay a monthly amount of Rs. 2,000 for her expenses.

The case concerned a dispute between an elderly mother and her son over a property that had been transferred to the son through a registered gift deed executed by both parents.

The mother approached the Maintenance Tribunal claiming that she had not been properly cared for and sought to have the transfer set aside.

The Tribunal accepted her plea and declared the transfer void to the extent of her share, directing the son’s family to vacate her portion of the property.

This order was challenged by the son, who argued that the gift deed did not contain any express condition requiring him to maintain his parents and that such a condition is necessary for invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

He also contended that the Tribunal had not properly examined whether there was any actual failure on his part to maintain his mother.

The High Court agreed with this position and examined the law governing such disputes.

It noted that the Supreme Court has clarified that for a property transfer to be declared void under Section 23, two key requirements must be met: first, the transfer must have been made subject to a condition that the child would provide basic amenities and physical needs; and second, there must be a failure to fulfil that obligation.

On facts, the Court found that the gift deed only recorded that the son had been looking after his parents and that they were satisfied with his conduct.

It did not impose any binding condition requiring him to continue doing so in the future. The Court held that such a recital cannot be treated as a legal obligation that would allow the transfer to be cancelled under the statute.

At the same time, the Bench recognised the broader purpose of the law, which is to protect senior citizens from neglect and ensure their dignity.

It observed that even if the property transfer cannot be undone, the responsibility of the son to care for his mother remains intact, both legally and morally.

Balancing these considerations, the Court directed that the mother must be allowed to reside in the property without interference and that the son must ensure her well-being by providing basic necessities and a monthly allowance.

It also directed local police authorities to assist in ensuring compliance with the order and to facilitate her access to the premises if required.

The Court ultimately held that while the Tribunal had erred in declaring the gift deed void without the necessary legal conditions being met, the mother’s right to maintenance required protection through appropriate directions.

The appeal was disposed of with these modifications.

Case Title: Smt. Niva Basu v. Sri Avishek Basu & Ors.

Bench: Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta

Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026