Disposed

Saradha v. The Distirct Collector

Madras HC1 Oct 2021WP/21173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, within eight weeks after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application, hear both parties, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Saradha Vs The Distirct Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.No.21173 of 2021

Saradha

.. Petitioner

Versus 1. The District Collector Office of the District Collector Chennai District 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Tribunal for Parents and Senior Citizens Welfare Maintenance Act 2007 Office of the RDO-Chennai North Tondiarpet Chennai - 600 081 3. The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Thiruvottriyur Chennai - 600 019 4. Felix .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to directing the respondent particularly the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry in the above said application dated 04.11.2020 filed by the petitioner expeditiously within a time limit framed by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Government counsel for R1 - R3

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Government Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶14

According to the petitioner, she married one Rajan, after the demise of his first wife by name, Mariya Korattire. The fourth respondent was born to him through the first wife. In the year 2003, the petitioner's husband purchased a property comprised in Survey No.66, 69/G situated at Thiruvallur District, measuring to an extent of 1221 sq.ft from and out of his earnings, in his name by Doc.No.4448/2003 dated 04.11.2003, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvotriyur. Subsequently, they constructed a house in the said property. At that time, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the fourth respondent made a settlement deed fraudulently in respect of half portion of the said property measuring to an extent of 610 ½ sq.ft. in his name and in the year 2010, he wantonly left the family and started living separately. Thereafter, when the petitioner's husband was suffering from serious health issues and he is under continuous treatment, the fourth respondent did not take care of him and pay any amount towards medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner decided to sell the said property in order to settle the debts due to the creditors and at that time, it was reflected in the encumbrance certificate that the fourth respondent is the owner of half portion of the said property by way of settlement deed. Feeling aggrieved, she filed an application on 04.11.2020 before the second respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, requesting to cancel the settlement deed executed on 10.11.2003 bearing Doc.No.4538/2003 in favour of the fourth respondent. However, no action was taken on the said application. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the second respondent in this regard.

¶15

Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this court, without going into merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.11.2020 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

dhk

¶24

¶25

The District Collector Office of the District Collector

¶26

Chennai District

¶27

The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Tribunal for Parents and Senior Citizens

¶28

Welfare Maintenance Act 2007

¶29

Office of the RDO-Chennai North

¶30

Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081

¶31

The Sub-Registrar

¶32

Office of the Sub-Registrar

¶33

Thiruvottriyur, Chennai - 600 019

¶34

+1cc to Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, Advocate, S.R.No.51326 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.51592

WP.No.21173 of 2021

PMK(CO)

CS/08/11/2021

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saradha v. The Distirct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saradha v. The Distirct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malliga Vs The District Collector

Reliable Cashew Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Union of India

S.Saraswathi Vs Government of tamil Nadu

S.Rajmalathi Vs The District collector

V.Ravi Vs The Collector

B.L.Vimala Vs The Thasildar