Sundaramoorthy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum

O R D E R Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the first respondent, whereby the registered settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The third respondent executed a registered settlement deed dated 04.09.2013, vide Document No.1163 of 2013, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the third respondent made an application before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the said settlement deed. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated

27.05.2022, observed that the petitioner had failed to take care of the third respondent and consequently directed cancellation of the settlement deed. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have jurisdiction under Section 23 only in respect of transfers by way of gift or settlement, where the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. In the present case, the document in question is a settlement deed without any such conditional clause. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the settlement deed.

¶4Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, the learned counsel submitted that, it was categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

¶5The learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed dated 04.09.2013 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. In the absence of such a condition incorporated in the document of transfer, the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, would not be attracted.

¶6This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶7Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, reported in

(2024) 14 SCC 225, has held that the deeming fiction under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can be invoked only when the transfer is made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and the transferee fails to fulfil such condition. Unless such a condition is expressly incorporated in the document of transfer, the jurisdiction under Section 23 cannot be exercised for declaring the transfer void. The Supreme Court further held that the authorities constituted under the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to annul a transfer in the absence of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section

23.

¶8Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the document in question is a registered settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to direct cancellation of the registered settlement deed by invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside.

¶9However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted his obligation to maintain the third respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance to the third respondent, on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the monthly maintenance, it is open to the third respondent to work out his remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including seeking enforcement of the maintenance order, in accordance with law.

¶10With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

17.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To

¶1The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Executive Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶2The Sub Registrar, Nainarkoil, Ramanathapuram District. M.DHANDAPANI

,J.

PKN DATED : 17.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP (MD) Nos.12966 and 12967 of 2022 Sundaramoorthy ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Executive Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Sub Registrar, Nainarkoil, Ramanathapuram District. 3. Nagu ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27/05/2022 in Pa.Moo.A2/66/2021 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For R1 & R2 : Ms.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for State For R3 : Mr.V.Murugan