High Court · 2025

W.P.No.22250 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALAW.P No. 22250 of 2025andWMP.No.25029 of 2025B.Vasanthakumari... PetitionerVs1. The District Collector,Collectorate, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Revenue Divisional Office, Dharmapuri District. 3.Dr.B.Suguna .... RespondentsWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders of the 1st Respondent in her proceedings in Se.Mu. Na.No. 2018/A1/ 2023 dated 22.07.2024 and the Impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in her proceedings Pa.Mu. 2130/2023 /A1 dated 20.07.2023 and quash the same and further direct the 1st and 2nd Respondent to cancel the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent in Document No.3234/ 2018 dated 06.09.2018 on the file of Sub- Register Office, Dharmapuri.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025For Petitioner:Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.JeevithaFor Respondents : Mr.R.Murthi, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 O R D E RWrit petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, of the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 20.07.2023, to quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2, to cancel the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent on 06.09.2018, and pass further or other orders.2. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 81 years. The petitioner's husband was a Block Development Officer and died in December 2015. The petitioner was blessed with two children, a son and a daughter. Both were married and residing in England. The petitioner purchased a land in Survey No.106/2, Thadangam Village, measuring an extent of 5160 Sq.Ft, under a registered sale deed, on 19.01.2009. The petitioner out of love and affection for her daughter, who is the 3rd respondent herein, executed a settlement deed on 06.09.2018, with a fond hope that the 3rd respondent would take care of her in her old age. The petitioner states that initially the 3rd respondent took care of her, but later, she neglected her. The petitioner states that with a meager family 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025pension of Rs.15,000/-, she was not able to maintain herself and further as the 3rd respondent was not helping her, she decided to get back her property by cancelling the settlement deed, dated 06.09.2018. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer/ 2nd respondent in 2022. The 2nd respondent on 20.07.2023, passed an order dismissing the petitioner's petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 28.11.2023. The 1st respondent after due enquiry, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, in respect of cancellation of the settlement deed. However, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders of the 1st and 2nd respondent's, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason cited by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of the settlement deed was that, in the settlement deed there was no condition as to maintenance as mandated under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said reason cited by the respondents was diabolically counter to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.3582 of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 20252024, dated 06.03.2025. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside.4. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.5. With the consent of both the learned counsels, writ petition is takenup for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.6. The facts are undisputed and the gist of the facts are as follows:The petitioner as the mother of the 3rd respondent executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, on 06.09.2018, with a fond hope that, her daughter would care and maintain her in the twilight of her life. Pursuant to the settlement deed, eventhough the 3rd respondent initially maintained the petitioner, thereafter she totally neglected her. The petitioner therefore petitioned the 2nd respondent in 2022, under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, for cancellation of the settlement deed executed by her in favour of the 3rd respondent. As the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner's aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 28.11.2023. The 1st respondent vide the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025impugned order dated 22.07.2024, while confirming the order of the 2nd respondent, directed the 3rd respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.7. The operative portion of the impugned order of the 1st respondent reads as follows:@vdnt. nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpy; jUkg[hp tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpauhy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l Mizapy; Mtzg;gjpt[ 2018?y; eilbgw;Ws;s epiyapy; jd;id guhkhpf;f ntz;Lk; vd btspg;gilahf epge;jid tpjpf;ftpy;iy vd;w fhuzj;jpid fhl;o K:j;j Fokf;fs; g[fhiu btspg;gilahf cz;ikf;F Kuzhf khWg;gl;l fUj;jpid bjhptpj;J 2019 jpUj;j Miz kw;Wk; 2021. 2022?y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l ePjpkd;w jPh;;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapy; jdJ kDit js;Sgo bra;J Miz gpwg;gpj;Js;shh; vdt[k;. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w jPh;g;ghiz WP.No.28190/2022 & WMP.No.27489/2022 ehs;:08.09.2023-d; goahd jPh;g;ghizapy; bgw;nwhiu guhkhpf;Fk; epge;jidfs; ,y;yhjjhYk;. brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuj;jpid uj;J bra;ayhk; vd jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjida[k;. nkYk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiuf;fpis jPh;g;ghiz vz;:WP(MD).No.25104 of 2023 Dt.07.10.2023-d; go bgw;nwhiu guhkhpf;fhjjhy; 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025kfDf;F jhdkhf tH';fpa brhj;J gjpit 8 thuj;jpy; uj;J bra;a ntz;Lbkd;w kJiu ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[iuapy; Twg;gl;Ls;s jPh;g;g[iuapd; goa[k;. jdJ kfSf;F vGjpf;bfhLj;j jhdbrl;oy;bkz;l; brhj;J Fwpj;j gj;jpu gjpt[ vz;:3234/2018 ehs;:06.09.2018-I uj;J bra;J jdJ brhj;jpid jdf;nf jpUk;g tH';fp ,Wjpf;fhy thH;f;ifapid mikjpahf fHpj;jpljf;fbjhU Mizapid gpwg;gpj;jpl khtl;l Ml;rpah; mth;fsplk; nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lij bjhlh;e;J ,e;neh;tpy; kDjhuh; kw;Wk; fpuhkeph;thf mYtyh; Mfpnahh;fspd; tprhuiz kw;Wk; thf;FK:y';fspd;go jpUkjp/RFzh jdJ jhahhpd; guhkhpg;gpw;fhf bgw;nwhh; kw;Wk; K:j;jFokf;fs; ghJfhg;g[ rl;lk; 2007 kw;Wk; guhkhpg;g[ rl;lk; 2009-d;go Kjpnahhpd; eyd; fUjp ,t;thiz fpilf;fbgw;w njjpapypUe;J xt;bthU khJKk; 10 Mk; njjpf;Fs; U:/10.000—j;ij (U:gha; gj;jhapuk; kl;Lk;) $Ptdhk;rkhf kDjhuhpd; t';fp fzf;fpy; brYj;j ,jd; K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/@8. The sole ground assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of the settlement deed is absence of a specific clause providing for the maintenance of the petitioner herein. However, the issue as to whether, in the absence of an express stipulation for maintenance, the settlement deed would still be liable to be cancelled under Section 23(1) of the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has been considered and answered in W.A.No.3852 of 2024. The Hon'ble Division Bench, in the said judgment held as follows:“47. The legal position, as narrated in the aforementioned paragraphs, in the context of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts, makes it clear that the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act need not be explicit, but might be implied. The love and affection being the consideration, which can be traced out in the Settlement Deed, would be sufficient to hold that such love and affection is an implied condition that the senior citizen will be taken care of by the beneficiary of the Settlement Deed or gift deed. In the event of neglecting the senior citizen, the deed of settlement or gift is liable to be annulled.”9. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that where the property is transferred by the senior citizen out of natural love and affection or otherwise, there exists an implied condition that the transferee shall provide for the transferor's basic needs, including food, shelter, medical care and emotional support. If such implicit understanding is breached and the transferee fails to maintain the senior citizen, the transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor, notwithstanding, the absence of any explicit clause in the instrument. In the present case, the mother out of natural love and affection for her daughter, 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025the 3rd respondent herein, and with complete faith and trust that the 3rd respondent will maintain her in the twilight of her life, executed the settlement deed. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, despite receiving the property neglected the petitioner and so she had to apply for cancellation of the settlement deed to the respondents. The respondents in mechanical fashion rejected the petitioner's prayer on the sole ground that the settlement deed does not contain an express condition for maintenance, overlooking that the condition can be implied, moreso, when the relationship between the transferor and transferee was that of a mother and daughter.10. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from a fundamental non-application of mind to the object and scope of the Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act. The authority has erroneously treated the absence of an express maintenance condition as conclusive, without examining the broader factual context, the implied obligations arising from the transfer, and the hardship faced by the petitioner. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order's cannot be sustained and hence are set aside.11. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3582 of 2024, dated 06.03.2025 and the observations made herein before. The 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent and thereafter, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.06.2025 dsnIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking Order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1. The District Collector,Collectorate, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.2.The Revenue Divisional OfficerRevenue Divisional Office, Dharmapuri District.N. MALA, J.dsn9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22250 of 2025W.P No. 22250 of 202520.06.202510/10