Karuppan v. District Magistrate cum District Collector, Appellate Tribu

WP No. 40946 of 2025For PetitionerMr..ParthasarathyFor Respondents: Mr.R.Murthy, Govt. Advocate(for R1 and R2)ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2025 thereby cancelling the settlement deed dated 16.03.2024 executed in favour of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent under Section 23 of the Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The petitioner is the daughter of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 0.61 1/2 cents comprised in SF.No.315/3 situated at Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore. Thereafter, the said property was settled in favour of the petitioner by the settlement deed dated 16.03.2024 vide Document No.4232 of 2024.Page No.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 20254. While being so, as the petitioner failed to maintain her father, her father-the 3rd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 23 of the Act. After due enquiry, the 1st respondent cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, out of love and affection, the 3rd respondent had executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on account of ill-advice from others, he had filed the complaint before the 1st respondent to cancel the said settlement deed. It is also submitted that the subject property is ancestral in nature and therefore, the petitioner’s father had no absolute right to deal with the property. It is further contended that the conditions as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, do not find place in the Settlement Deed. Hence, the same cannot be cancelled under the said provision. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement of this court reported in (2025) 4 MLJ 150 – Karuppan Vs. District Magistrate cum District Collector, Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi and others.Page No.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 20256. This Court has already dealt with the present issue in several writ petitions including the case of Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector., order dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.No.28190 of 2022 in which this Court, after discussing various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various judgements of different High Courts of India, held in favour of the senior citizen who executed the settlement deed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder as follows:-“33. Close reading of the principles considered by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, there is no ambiguity with reference to the purpose and object sought to be achieved under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act. Section 4(2) of the Act, unambiguously stipulates that the obligation of the children or the relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase lead a normal life Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen Rules, enumerates that it shall be the duty of the District Collector to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live with security Page No.4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025and dignity. Therefore, normal life includes security and dignity. Thus the normal life as indicated under Section 4(2) of the Act, is not mere life, but a life with security and dignity. In the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, life includes decent medical facility, food, shelter with dignity and security. All such combined necessities of human life is falling under the term Normal Life emboldened under Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizen Act. Therefore, simply providing food and shelter would be insufficient. But life includes providing of decent medical facilities, food, shelter and other requirements with dignity in commensuration with the status of the family and taking into consideration of the living style of the senior citizen throughout. 35. Therefore, the children defending their case merely on the ground that they are willing to provide food and shelter, cannot be taken as a ground for the purpose of sustaining the Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen. The requirement of the provisions are to be complied in its real spirit and in the event of an iota of doubt, the Authority Competent is empowered to cancel the Settlement Deed or Gift Deed, as the Page No.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025case may be, in order to protect the normal life of senior citizen.36. Section 4(3) denotes, the obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parents may lead a normal life. Therefore, it is an obligation on the part of the children to maintain his or her parents and ensure the parents to lead a normal life. In the event of complaint, the Authorities Competent are expected to ensure that the senior citizen and their life and dignity are protected. The above provision is to be read in conjunction with the Rules framed under the Act.37. Rule 20 of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen Rules, provide duties and powers of the District Collector. The District Collector is casted upon the duty to ensure that the life and property of citizens of the District are protected and other people to live with security and dignity. Therefore, it is the statutory duty on the part of the District Collector to protect the safety and security of senior citizens in his District. Thus the complaint filed by the senior citizen, cannot be treated lightly. Such complaints are to be enquired into in a pragmatic manner, Page No.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025so as to understand the real grievances of the senior citizen and accordingly, all appropriate actions are to be initiated to provide safety, security and to protect the dignity of the senior citizen.38. The Kerala High Court observed in the case of Radhamani and Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen Act, cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates that Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. The phrase subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities does not mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain any such condition expressly. Subject to the condition as employed in Section 23(1), is to be holistically Page No.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025understood with reference to the subsequent phrase i.e., deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Both the phrases would amplify that the deeming clause should be considered so as to form an opinion that the phrase subject to condition amounts to an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen and any violation would be sufficient for the purpose of invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, to cancel the Gift or Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen.39. To elaborate, the phrase subject to condition employed under Section 23(1) of the Act, is to be understood with reference to the love and affection by the senior citizen towards the person in favour of whom such Gift or Settlement Deed has been executed.40. Love and Affection is an implied condition in the context of Section 23(1) of the Act, and therefore, there need not be any express condition in the Settlement Deed for the purpose of maintaining the senior citizen. Refusal of maintenance after executing the Settlement Deed or Gift Deed, is the ground for Page No.8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025invoking the deemed ground of fraud or coercion or undue influence. When the deeming clause has been incorporated under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, -Love and Affection- to be construed as the consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed. Thus the condition need not be expressly made in the document and the love and affection, which resulted in execution of the Deed by the senior citizen is to be construed as a condition for the purpose of invoking the deeming clause for declaring the document as fraud or coercion or undue influence.41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to consider the human conduct towards them. When the human conduct is indifferent towards senior citizen and their security and dignity are not protected, then the provisions of the Act, is to be pressed into service to safeguard the security and dignity of senior citizen. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the provisions are of paramount importance and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint filed by the senior citizen on the ground that there is no express condition for maintaining the senior citizen. Even Page No.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025in the absence of any express condition in the document, Love and Affection being the consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed, such love and affection becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the second respondent in the present case.42. The human conduct in the context of the senior citizen Act, is to be understood considering the relationship between the senior citizen and the beneficiaries of the Gift or Settlement Deed. Mostly the parents are executing the document in favour of their children. Since they may not be in a position to maintain the property at their old-age and more-so, they are intending to visibly express their love and affection towards their children by settling their properties. In some cases, the parents during their old-age are settling their property in order to avoid conflict between their children and to ensure that all children get equal share. If at all the parents decide to settle the property in favour of a son or daughter, then they are doing so, only with love and affection and with a fond hope that they will be taken care of by the son or daughter during their old-age. Page No.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025Thus love and affection, being the consideration and implied condition, within the meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act. The subsequent non-maintenance of senior citizen would attract Section 23(1) of the Act and the Authorities in such circumstances are empowered to declare the document as null and void.43. Therefore, Section 23 is referable as a conduct of the transferee prior to and after execution of the Deed of Gift or Settlement, as the case may be. For all purposes, Section 23 is to be understood taking note of the conduct of the transferee and not with reference to the specific stipulation of condition in the Deed of Gift or Settlement.44. In respect of the judgment relied on by the petitioner in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another (cited supra), the Three Judges Bench of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban and District and Others (cited supra) is to be followed. There are several judgments to establish that the purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to be complied with in its letter and spirit in order to protect Page No.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025the life, security and dignity of senior citizens. Thus the judgment relied on by the petitioner is of no avail as far as the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand is concerned.”7. The above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand and in view of the same, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2025.8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Shr05-11-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoPage No.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025To1.The Revenue Divisional OfficerCoimbatore South State Bank Road, Opp To Railway Station, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore 641 0182.The District CollectorCoimbatore South State Bank Road, Opp To Railway Station, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore 641 018Page No.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 40946 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.ShrWP No. 40946 of 2025 05-11-2025Page No.14/14