Chhattisgarh HC: Gift Deed Can Be Cancelled for Elder Neglect Even Without Maintenance Clause

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 87 | 2026:CGHC:5894-DB

Feb. 03, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a residential property gift deed executed by elderly parents in favour of their relatives, ruling that senior citizens are entitled to reclaim property if the transfer is followed by neglect or denial of basic care, even when the gift deed does not expressly mention a maintenance obligation.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ appeal filed by Ramkrishna Pandey and another, affirming earlier orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, the appellate authority, and a Single Judge of the High Court.

The dispute arose from a 2016 gift deed through which an elderly couple transferred their house in Bilaspur to a close relative and their daughter. The senior citizens later approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that after the transfer, they were subjected to harassment, denial of basic amenities such as electricity, food and medical access, and were ultimately forced to move into an old-age home.

The appellants argued that the gift deed was absolute and unconditional, and since it did not contain any written clause requiring them to maintain the donors, the property could not be revoked under Section 23 of the Act. They also contended that the elderly parents were financially independent due to pension and other properties, and therefore could not invoke the Act.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation meant to protect senior citizens from neglect and exploitation, and must be interpreted liberally. The Bench clarified that a written maintenance clause in a gift deed is not mandatory. An obligation to care for senior citizens can be inferred from the relationship between the parties, the circumstances surrounding the transfer, and the conduct of the beneficiaries after the gift.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that mere receipt of pension or ownership of other property does not bar elderly persons from seeking protection under the Act if they are subjected to neglect or denied a dignified life. The record showed that the elderly couple had been compelled to leave their own home due to hostile conduct, which justified the cancellation of the gift deed.

The Court also rejected technical objections regarding the composition of the Maintenance Tribunal and the nature of inquiry conducted, noting that proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and not equivalent to a civil trial. Since concurrent findings of fact had been recorded by all authorities, the High Court found no perversity or illegality warranting interference.

With this ruling, the High Court reaffirmed that property transfers made by senior citizens can be annulled when trust and legitimate expectations of care are breached, reinforcing the protective framework of the 2007 Act.

Case Reference : WA No. 103 of 2026, Ramkrishna Pandey and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; for the appellants: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Ms. Sakshi Dewangan, Advocates; for respondent No. 1/State: Mr. Priyanik Rathi, Government Advocate; and for respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate.