Pachakkal v. The District Magistrate Cum District Collector

O R D E R Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the first respondent, whereby the registered gift 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 daughter of the third respondent. The third respondent executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 28.09.2017, vide Document No. 2204 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Swamimalai, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the third respondent made an application before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the said Sale Deed. The second respondent ordered to cancel the document. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, observed that the petitioner had failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor/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 Sale Deed and not a gift or settlement deed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the first and second respondents had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the Sale Deed. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶4The learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed dated 28.09.2017 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fifth 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.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶6The 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.

¶7Coming to 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 fifth 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.

¶8However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted her obligation to maintain the third respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- 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 her 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.

¶9With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The impleading petition stands closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To

¶1The District Magistrate Cum Direct Collector, Thanjavur District.

¶2The Sub Divisional Executive, Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. M.DHANDAPANI

,J.

PKN DATED : 09.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.10384 of 2022 and 10972 of 2023 V.Durgadevi ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1. The District Magistrate Cum Direct Collector, Thanjavur District. 2. The Sub Divisional Executive, Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 3. Shanthi ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the District Magistrate cum District Collector of Thanjavur, the 1st respondent herein dated 03.06.2022 vide Na.Ka.No.14473/2022/G2 confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer of Kumbakonam dated 09.03.2022 vide Na.Ka.No.2672-2020-A-4 and to and quash the same as illegal without jurisdiction and violation of Section 2(h) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Rajaraman For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Ramasamy, Counsel for State For R3 : Mr.K.Appadurai