Allowed

R.Kamalam v. The District Collector and

Madras HC19 Dec 2022WP/324/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside orders by Revenue authorities cancelling a settlement deed executed between a mother and her daughter. The Court held the Act does not mandate care obligations in settlement deeds and civil courts must examine title disputes.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the District Collector, District Magistrate and Presiding Officer Tribunal cancelling the settlement deed were set aside.

R.Kamalam Vs The District Collector and — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 19.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No. 324 of 2022 And

¶7

W.M.P.Nos. 358 & 9856 of 2022

¶8

R.Kamalam ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

..Vs..

¶10

The District Collector and District Magistrate Ariyalur District.

¶11

The Presiding Officer Tirbunal for Special Cases and Revenue Divisional Officer Udayarpalayam Division Ariyalur District.

¶12

Tmt. Sarasu ... Respondents/Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the second respondent in Case No. 02/2020, Mu.Mu.File No. 493 of 2020 dated 24.09.2020 as confirmed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.E2/4671/2020 dated 22.12.2021 and quash the same.

¶14

¶15

For Petitioner :: Mr. S.Kamadevan For RR 1 & 2 :: Mr. M. Geetha Thamaraiselvan

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

¶18

For 3^rd Respondent :: No appearance

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari seeking interference with the orders of the second respondent in Case No. 02 of 2020 dated 24.09.2020 as confirmed by the first respondent dated 22.12.2021.

¶21

2 . The third respondent/ mother of the petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the property measuring 16 cents in SF No. 72/19A and 72/15H at Ponparappi Kudikadu Village, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District. It was actually a sale for consideration of Rs.1/- lakh. It was on 15.04.2002. However, they were advised to execute a settlement deed. The third respondent is said to have executed a settlement deed. Thereafter, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 came into force which was brought into effect by the State of Tamil Nadu on September 2008.

¶22

3. It appears that the third respondent had given a complaint before the second respondent stating that though a settlement had been made on the property, the petitioner was not looking after her.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

¶25

4. The second respondent had passed an order cancelling the settlement deed. This order was also confirmed by the first respondent.

¶26

5. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had also filed O.S.No. 105 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court at Ariyalur, seeking cancellation of the said Settlement Deed. The petitioner for good measure had filed O.S.No. 176 of 2020 before the Sub Court Ariyalur, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The third respondent appears to be in possession of the property.

¶27

6. It would only be advisable that the order of the first and second respondents are interfered with and set aside since it is clear that the settlement deed cannot be interfered with under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 as there is no specific clause that the petitioner should look after the third respondent. However this order shall not preclude the Civil Court from examining the settlement deed, the cancellation of the settlement deed and other subsequent transactions on the property in accordance with the evidence produced before the Civil Court.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

¶30

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., vsg

¶31

7. The parties should be granted full opportunity to produce necessary oral and documentary evidence. However the order of the first and second respondents are hereby interfered with and set aside. If at all the first and second respondent seek to furnish information, they may also implead themselves as parties / defendants and participate in the said suit.

¶32

8. Recording as above, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent of setting aside the orders of the first and second respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

19.12.2022

¶34

vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order To

¶35

The District Collector and District Magistrate Ariyalur District.

¶36

The Presiding Officer Tirbunal for Special Cases and Revenue Divisional Officer Udayarpalayam Division Ariyalur District.

¶37

W.P.No. 324 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos. 358 & 9856 of 2022

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Kamalam v. The District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kamalam v. The District Collector and

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

Mr.T.Seshathri Vs Mr.Loganathan

S.N.R.Balasubramaniam (Deceased) Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Mumthaj Vs The Collector

T.Ramakrishnan Vs the District Revenue Officer

M.Jayarani Vs The District Collector

Namrita Bindra - Gautier Vs Auroville Foundation