Manthiramoorthi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate

O R D E R Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/4296/2023 dated 23.09.2023, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent is the first petitioner's mother and second petitioner's grandmother and out of love and affection the third respondent executed settlement deeds bearing Document Nos.1925 of 2022 & 1630 of 2023 dated 20.07.2022 and

30.05.2023, respectively, in favour of the second petitioner, mentioning first petitioner as the guardian of the second petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the first respondent. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent in and by proceedings dated

23.09.2023, cancelled the aforesaid settlement deeds executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the first petitioner had failed to maintain his mother / third respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The aforesaid settlement deeds dated 20.07.2022 and 30.05.2023, executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioners are absolute and irrevocable settlement deeds, which cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only when the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition is breached. In the absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the settlement deed.

4.Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein, it has been 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.

5.Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the first petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the issue is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7.Admittedly, the first petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala's case, as referred to supra, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be exercised only if the transfer of property has been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition has been violated. In the absence of such a condition in the deed of transfer, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the transfer. The relevant portion with regard to unilateral cancellation is extracted hereunder; "46.The writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is filed by the daughter of the second respondent to quash the order passed by the first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The gift deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was unilaterally cancelled by the second respondent father. The settlement deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent, dated 06.03.2015 is irrevocable and it is a deed of settlement out of love and affection. The second respondent has specifically stated that he has no right to revoke the settlement deed. From the recitals, the settlement does not attract Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz., the second respondent, has not put any condition. In other words, the gift deed is not subject to any condition or terms that the transferor shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the second respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for invoking the power provided to the second respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Even though we agree that the writ petition can be allowed, this Court is unable to decide the writ petition in this batch where question referred to us is different. Hence, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is de-linked and the Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench." [Emphasis supplied]

8.In the case on hand, a perusal of the settlement deeds dated

20.07.2022 and 30.05.2023 do not disclose any condition requiring the petitioners to maintain the executant as as pre-condition for transfer of the properties. Therefore, the essential requirement for involving Section 23(1) of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first respondent could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act.

9.In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/4296/2023 dated

23.09.2023 is liable to be set aside.

10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/4296/2023 dated 23.09.2023 is hereby quashed. However, since it is the duty of the first respondent son to take care of his mother, the first petitioner is directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- to the third respondent, on or before 7th day of every English Calender month and also ensure shelter to the third respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.07.2026 NCC : Index : Internet:

MR To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi Distirct.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. MR

21.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.(MD)No.21165 of 2023 1.Manthiramoorthi 2.Minor Karnan ... Petitioners -vs- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi Distirct. 3.Parvathi Ammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/4296/2023 dated 23.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.3 : Mr.R.Murali