Allowed

Ramajeyam.K v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WP(MD)/3955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a son challenging the cancellation of a 2018 settlement deed granting him property, citing his father's claim for maintenance. The Court appointed a mediator who succeeded in settling the parties, resulting in the dismissal of the impugned order and a lumpsum maintenance payment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the settlement deed is set aside; the second respondent can reside until their lifetime; the petitioner must pay Rs.10,00,000/- as lumpsum settlement within two months.

Ramajeyam.K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.3398 & 3399 of 2022

Ramajeyam.K

... Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶11

2.Kailsam

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A6/4378/2020, dated 21.01.2022 issued under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶17

For petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R1 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed as against the orders passed by the

¶20

Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The second respondent, who is the father of the petitioner has filed an application for maintenance and for cancellation of the document, dated 12.03.2018, which was registered in favour of the petitioner has approached the first respondent/the Revenue Divisional officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order dated 21.01.2022 has cancelled the settlement deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. As against that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶24

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no doubt the second respondent has executed a settlement deed in his favour on 12.03.2018. In the meantime, the second respondent has also executed a similar settlement deed in favour of his another son. The second respondent has equally settled the land to an extent of 18.5 acres to both his sons. Now, the second respondent has filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as if this petitioner is not maintaining him.

¶25

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the settlement deed submits that there is no specific clause/condition in the settlement deed. In the absence of any condition in the settlement deed, it cannot be cancelled.

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶29

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that

¶30

after perusing the settlement deed relied on by the petitioner submits that there is no specific clause in the settlement deed.

¶31

5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent is aged about 75 years and he is undergoing dialysis twice in a week. Therefore, he requests some monthly maintenance. The learned counsel has insisted that he is not having any space to reside along with his wife and now he is in a godown.

¶32

6.Considering the rival submissions made and in order to

¶33

give quietus to this issue, this Court appointed Mr.N.Balakrishnan, as a mediator. The learned senior counsel after conducting mediation has made certain suggestions and both the parties have agreed for the terms.

¶34

4/7

¶35

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

¶36

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶37

7.In pursuance of the mediation, the petitioner gives an undertaking that his parents can reside in the ground floor of D.No. 3/1B till his life time. The petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as monthly maintenance or Rs.10,00,000 Lakhs as a lumpsum settlement. The learned counsel for the second respondent agreed for receiving Rs.10,00,000/- as a lumpsum settlement.

¶38

8.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in the

¶39

following terms:

¶40

i. The second respondent along with his wife can reside inD.No.

¶41

3/1B till their life time.

¶42

ii. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to his father/ the second respondent herein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

iii.The impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶47

Officer, Trichy in Na.Ka.A6/4378/2020, dated 21.01.2022, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶48

20.09.2023

¶49

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn

¶50

To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶51

6/7

¶52

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

¶53

WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022

¶54

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶55

vrn

¶56

Order made in WP(MD)No.3955 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.3398 & 3399 of 2022

¶57

20.09.2023

¶58

7/7

¶59

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

Ramajeyam.K v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramajeyam.K v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Johnson Vs The Under Secretary (Psp-I)

Kulandaivel P Vs The District Collector

Jafar Asan Maideen Batcha Vs The Regional Passport officer

Jesudasan Ravi .S Vs The Managing Director

A. Balakrishnan Vs L. Mohandass

V.Murugeswari Vs M.S.Sangeetha IAS