Gifts can be revocable?

Daljit Kaur, 88, gifted property to Varinder Kaur (her daughter-in-law) via a written gift deed (dated May, 2015). Daljit filed a suit against Varinder claiming that the gift deed be declared void because her daughter-in-law failed to (in fact refused to) take care of Daljit’s basic needs. Matter went right up to the High Court and the court ordered (dated Sep, 2025) in favour of Daljit thereby declaring the gift void – under the Senior Citizens Act. For this Daljit used her rights under Sec. 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act - a provision introduced with noble intentions, but it seems it needs to be read liberally for just results.

It took over 6 years for Daljit to get justice. Why so long? Because of a technical interpretation issue resulting from the fact that Daljit did not make her gift expressly conditional against getting basic amenities & physical needs from the recipient.

So, if you are a senior citizen (Indian citizen, aged 60 or more) who is transferring a good amount of your wealth to your children etc. then keep in mind 2 things – (1) retain enough wealth in your name so you are not wholly dependent upon recipients; (2) if for some reason you end up gifting a whole lot, then try to incorporate this condition into your gift deed.

Sep 2025 – Delhi High Court decision – Smt. Varinder Kaur v. Smt. Daljit Kaur, 2025 DHC 8641-DB.

The Technicalities

Sec. 23(1) provides that if a senior gifts property subject to the condition that the recipient will provide for their basic amenities and physical needs, and the recipient later fails to do so, the gift can be declared void at the senior’s option.

In Daljit Kaur’s case, the gift deed had no such express condition, yet the court still ruled in favour of the senior. The court reasoned that:

(1) Insisting on an express condition would defeat the law’s purpose since most seniors, especially when gifting to children, rarely include such terms.

(2) Seniors unaware of this legal requirement would lose statutory protection merely due to lack of drafting knowledge.

This would make the law meaningless, contrary to its intent of protecting the elderly. The court held that even without an express clause, authorities must consider post-gift facts—whether the senior was denied basic amenities after execution.

In short, an express “basic needs” condition written in the gift deed isn’t mandatory for invoking Section 23(1).

This ruling mainly relied on Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Collector, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1031. Whereas the Supreme Court’s Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787 endorses a beneficial interpretation of this law.