JUDGMENT : (M.S. RAMESH, J.) The appellant herein, who is the grandfather of the 1 st respondent herein, had executed a gift deed in his favour, registered as Document No.825/2020 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sayalkudi, of a property comprised in Survey Nos.202/5 and 202/13B at Sayalkudi, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. In the recitals to the document, it is stated that in consideration of the love and affection towards his grandson and since he had been fulfilling all the duties and taking care of his grandfather, the gift deed is executed. However, the appellant herein had made an application before the 2 nd respondent under Section 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking for cancellation of the gift deed, predominantly on the ground that his son R.Veemarajan/father of the 1 st respondent had failed to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to him. Through an order dated 10.05.2022, the 3 rd respondent had cancelled the gift deed dated 07.09.2020. When the 1 st respondent had challenged the cancellation order before the 2 nd respondent by way of an appeal, the same was rejected on the ground that, as per Section 16(1) of the Act, a senior citizen alone could file an appeal against the cancellation order. Under these circumstances, the 1 st respondent had challenged the cancellation order dated 10.05.2022 before the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.16588 of 2022. The learned Single Judge, through an order dated 08.08.2024, had found that there are no recitals in the gift deed that the transferee should provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and in the absence of such a condition, the gift deed cannot be questioned under the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge is put under challenge in this intra- Court appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and submitted that in view of the dictum laid down in this case, the gift deed, which does not incorporate the pre-condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs, cannot be ordered to be cancelled under Section 23(1) of the Act. 3. Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and submitted that in view of the dictum laid down in this case, the gift deed, which does not incorporate the pre-condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs, cannot be ordered to be cancelled under Section 23(1) of the Act. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) has been distinguished in a subsequent judgment in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2 . According to him, the facts in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) , where the gift deed was made by the mother in favour of her son, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in hand, wherein the gift deed was made by the grandfather to the minor grandson. He also placed reliance on two revenue documents, whereby patta stood in the name of the appellant herein and since he possessed other properties by which he could maintain himself, the provisions of the Act will not apply. 4. Only on the ground that the gift deed did not incorporate the condition for the transferee to provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs, the learned Single Judge had quashed the order of the third respondent dated 10.05.2022. Apparently, the Writ Court applied the ratio decidendi rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra), which had clarified that two conditions are mandatory to be incorporated in the recitals of the deed, in order to make it voidable. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: a. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. 13. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. 13. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.” 5. What has been provided for under Section 23(1) has been explained in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set forth the aforesaid twin conditions for the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal before the final orders are passed. We are bound by the decision. 6. However, we are often confronted with cases of this nature, wherein the transferor executes the gift deed out of pure love and affection for the transferee or in consideration of the care and protection being offered by the transferee for the transferor. In documents of these nature, the transferor may consciously or without any intention, fail to incorporate the pre-conditions set forth in Section 23(1) qua the provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. 7. The consequential question that arises is mere failure to incorporate such a pre-condition would fail to attract Section 23(1) or not? This question is answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) itself, by holding that when an intention of the transferor that the transferee would provide the necessary amenities and physical needs is not specifically spelt out in the deed of conveyance, the onus of proving such an intention is on the transferor to establish it before the Tribunal. Following is the relevant portion of the judgment in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) :- “ 14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In a recent decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on the decisions in Brahmpal Vs. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In a recent decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on the decisions in Brahmpal Vs. National Insurance Company reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512 ; K.H.Nazar Vs. Mathew K.Jacob reported in (2020) 14 SCC 126 ; Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. Vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 140 ; X2 Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433 ; S.Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 and held that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, which must receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objectives of the concerned Act and that this Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted. Urmila Dixit's case (supra) also makes a reference to Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra). However, the facts between these two cases were distinguished and a final decision to quash the gift deed was arrived at. 9. In line with the decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), holding the act as a beneficial piece of legislation and to extend a liberal interpretation, we shall now deal with the facts of the present case. 10. The entire case revolves around the gift deed dated 07.09.2020 executed by the appellant in favour of the 1 st respondent. In the recitals of the gift deed, the appellant had expressed his intention for gifting the properties in favour of the 1 st respondent, in the following manner:- 11. As held in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra), the present gift deed has also been executed in favour of the 1 st respondent out of love and affection without any expectation, as evidenced in the portion of the recital extracted above. A careful reading of these recitals would indicate that though the properties were gifted to the minor grandson, the transferor had been referring to the care and protection being extended by his son R.Veemarajan, who is the father of his minor grandson, who was aged about 8 years at that relevant point of time. A careful reading of these recitals would indicate that though the properties were gifted to the minor grandson, the transferor had been referring to the care and protection being extended by his son R.Veemarajan, who is the father of his minor grandson, who was aged about 8 years at that relevant point of time. The transferor had not only taken note of the love and affection he had for the transferee, but had also equally considered the fact that the transferee has been protecting the transferor by fulfilling all his duties. 12. It is needless to mention that had the 1 st respondent failed to discharge his duties and protect his grandfather, the gift deed may not have been executed. Possibly, the appellant may have gifted the properties to the 1 st respondent with a fond hope that he would continue to support and protect him in the same way, which existed at the time of execution of the gift deed. In such situation, Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) had clarified that when such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation and when it is claimed that the twin conditions in Section 23(1) of the Act are attached to the transfer, the existence of such conditions is required to be established before the Tribunal. 13. In the instant case, when the appellant herein had made an application under Section 23(1), seeking for cancellation of the gift deed, the 3 rd respondent had cancelled the same, without analysing this aspect. As a matter of fact, there was no appearance of the 1 st respondent during the enquiry and the cancellation order came to be passed on the basis of his written objections. We are of the view that the 3 rd respondent herein can be called upon to revisit the original proceedings to ascertain as to whether the twin conditions prescribed in Section 23(1) exist in the recitals of the gift deed, for which purpose, it would be necessary to remand the matter back to the 3 rd respondent herein. 14. We are of the view that the 3 rd respondent herein can be called upon to revisit the original proceedings to ascertain as to whether the twin conditions prescribed in Section 23(1) exist in the recitals of the gift deed, for which purpose, it would be necessary to remand the matter back to the 3 rd respondent herein. 14. We have passed this order, in line with the decision in Urmila Dixit's case (supra), by giving a liberal interpretation to the objects of the Act and also in accordance with the findings in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the existence of the twin conditions under Section 23(1) in a deed of transfer requires to be established before the Tribunal. In view of such a decision, the order of the learned Single Judge also requires to be set aside. 15. In the light of the above observations, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.16588 of 2022, dated 08.08.2024, as well as the order of the 3 rd respondent herein dated 10.05.2022 made in Pa.Moo.A2/1681/2022, are quashed. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the 3 rd respondent herein for fresh consideration, who shall give due opportunities to both the appellant and the 1 st respondent herein and pass a speaking order, in the light of the legal ratios discussed in this judgment. However, all observations made by us with regard to the possible existence of an intention of the transferor that the transferee would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, shall not be taken as a precedent and that the Tribunal shall independently arrive at its own conclusion with regard to the interpretation of the recitals in the gift deed dated 07.09.2020. Such final orders shall be passed atleast within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.