Senior citizen sought mandamus to cancel his 1989 settlement deed in favour of wife and son. The court found the deed absolute and inferred the petition was filed only to defeat a mortgagee's rights after the son mortgaged the property, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
S.Neelakandan
Petitioner
versus
5.Dhanasekaran
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to
1/5
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
cancel the Settlement Deed in the Document No.310 of 1989, as per the representation dated 09.02.2024, registered by the fourth respondent.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Idhaya Mary For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.5 : Set exparte
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed to direct the fourth respondent to cancel the
Settlement Deed in Document No.310 of 1989, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2024.
2 . It is the case of the petitioner that he executed the Settlement
Deed on 10.03.1989 in favour of his wife and son, namely the fifth respondent. Now, the petitioner, who is a senior citizen, is not taking care of the fifth respondent. Hence, he seeks to cancel the Settlement Deed executed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2/5
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4.
4 . I have perused the document. The document is an absolute settlement. The Settlement Deed executed as early as in the year 1989. During the submissions, when the Court posed questions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property has been mortgaged by the fifth respondent for more than one crore and availed the mortgaged money. At this stage, this petition has been filed to cancel the settlement deed.
5 . The very nature of the relief sought to cancel the document would indicate that it has been filed only to avoid a mortgage. Therefore, the very fact that the fifth respondent remained ex parte , who is not appeared before this Court. Despite notice served also clearly gives rise to the inference that this Writ Petition has been filed only for some other purpose to defeat the rights of the mortgagee.
3/5
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
6 . In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in the Writ
Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
14.06.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
To
4/5
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
sri
W.P.No.8137 of 2024
14.06.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should direct cancellation of a 1989 settlement deed under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act based on the petitioner's representation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Neelakandan
The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai
The District Collector, Chennai
The Joint-2 Sub-Registrar, Saidapet-Velacherry Sub-Registrar Office, Chennai
The Sub-Registrar, Velacherry Sub-Registrar Office, Chennai
Dhanasekaran
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
