Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Aging Mother: Fixed Deposits and Jewellery Restored Under Senior Citizen Act
In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court recently reinforced the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, ruling that fixed deposits (FDs) and jewellery constitute "property" under the Act.
The case brought attention to the rights of senior citizens to reclaim assets transferred under fraudulent or coercive circumstances.
The Act and Its Provisions
The Senior Citizen Act, 2007, mandates that children or legal heirs have a fundamental duty to care for their elderly parents. Often, senior citizens transfer or gift their assets to their children, expecting lifelong care and support in return.
However, Section 23 of the Act empowers elders to reclaim their transferred property if this obligation is not met, deeming the transaction void in cases of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
The Case at Hand
The case involved an elderly mother who sought justice against her daughter for breaching an agreement regarding family assets. Initially, the mother raised her complaint with the District Collector, alleging that her daughter had failed to provide financial support. After receiving no resolution, she approached the Madras High Court for relief.
According to the mother, her late husband had left behind two fixed deposits worth ₹80 lakh and ₹90 lakh, for which she was the nominee.
After his passing, these deposits were transferred to her name. An agreement was reached within the family to evenly split all assets, including the FDs, between the daughter and her brother, while ensuring that the interest from the deposits would be paid to the mother for her financial security.
However, the daughter deceptively obtained her mother’s signature to transfer the FDs into her own name.
Following this, the daughter stopped paying the agreed interest, leaving her mother financially unsupported.
The Court's Observations
The court found that the fixed deposits had been unlawfully transferred and noted the daughter's failure to fulfill her responsibilities under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). It further emphasized the importance of Section 23, which highlights the expectations of senior citizens when transferring assets and the misconduct of the transferees.
The court remarked, "The Legislature recognizes the emotional vulnerability of senior citizens, who may be exploited under the guise of familial support. Transactions executed under such circumstances, based on malice or fraud, are to be declared void. The settlor’s (mother’s) intent must be central in evaluating such cases."
Key Ruling and Implications
The court directed the daughter to return the fixed deposits, valued at over ₹1.7 crore, and the jewellery to her mother.
