Dismissed

Al.Murugesan v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WP/10747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a complaint under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner had gifted property to his son in 2004, before the Act came into force. The court held Section 23 applies only to gifts executed after the Act's commencement and containing a maintenance clause.

What the court decided

AI extract

Al.Murugesan Vs the District Collector — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.10747 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.11828 of 2024

Al.Murugesan

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The District Collector Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶12

2.Superintendent of Police Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet Town, Ranipet District.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar Walajah Town, Ranipet District.

¶15

5.M.Kolandaivelu ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

¶20

praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned report Na.Ka.No.3/1631/2023 dated 10.01.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the Gift deed Document No. 715 of 2005 executed on 23.09.2004 by the petitioner and petitioner wife in favour of 5th respondent.

¶21

For Petitioners : M/s.Hari Perumal For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP [for R1, R3 & R4] : Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) [for R2] : Mr.G.Vetrivelrajan [for R5]

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

¶24

The petitioner is the father of the 5th respondent. The petitioner

¶25

seeks to reclaim the property he had settled in favor of the 5th respondent through a Gift Deed dated 23.09.2014, registered as Document No.715 of

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

¶29

According to the petitioner, he was not maintained by the 5th respondent and he could not able to maintain himself. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 23 of the Act before the 3rd respondent.

¶30

It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act. Section 23(1) of the Act reads as follows:-

¶31

" Where any senior citizen who, after the

¶32

commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise,

¶33

his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs

¶34

to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at

¶35

the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal."

¶36

Thus, it is clear that to attract the above provisions, the Gift Deed/Settlement Deed must be executed after the commencement of the Act

¶37

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

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

¶40

and must contain a specific clause that the transferee should maintain the transferor, failing which the Settlement Deed/Gift Deed stands automatically void.

¶41

Admittedly, the petitioner had settled the property in favor of the 5th respondent as early as in the year 2004, three years before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act is not maintainable.

¶42

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

21.08.2024

¶44

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No (shr)

¶45

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

4/6

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

1.The District Collector Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶50

2.Superintendent of Police Ranipet District, Ranipet.

¶51

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet Town, Ranipet District.

¶52

4.The Tahsildar Walajah Town, Ranipet District.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶54

W.P.No.10747 of 2024

¶55

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶56

(shr)

¶57

W.P.No.10747 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.11828 of 2024

¶58

21.08.2024

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Al.Murugesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Al.Murugesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Deva Kirubai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.N.Karunakaran Vs the Chennai Port Trust

Kalyani Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning

Tmt. B.Lalitha, Vs the Member Secretary

K.Muthulakshmi, Vs Dr.C.Usharani

Subramaniam Perumal, Vs the Commissioner