Allowed

R.Gowri v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC4 Jun 2024WP/8899/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen's complaint under Section 23 led the Tribunal to cancel a settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, who was never impleaded or noticed in those proceedings. Holding that a bona fide purchaser's deed cannot be cancelled behind her back, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

R.Gowri Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.8899 of 2020 and WMP.No.10821 of 2020

¶7

R.Gowri ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Erode, Erode District 2.The Sub Registrar, Sivagiri, Erode District 3.Chinnammal 4.K.Krishananth 5.Kulandaivel 6.P.Nataragan ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.5876/2019/Aa2 dated 01.06.2020 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶12

For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik, Government Advocate

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶16

For R3 : Mr.M.Arun for M/s.Karan and Uday

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 01.06.2020 thereby rejected the application filed by the third respondent under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

¶19

The third respondent had executed settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the property comprised in RS.No.1143/3 and 1146/1 situated at Sivagiri Village, Kodumudi, Erode District to an extent of 3.70 ½ acres in the year 2015. The fourth respondent is the grandson of the third respondent born through one of her son i.e. Kulandaivel. In turn, the fourth respondent had executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2017 and 2019. Since from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In fact, she also mortgaged property with the Canara Bank and obtained loan for developing her land. While being so, the third respondent who is aged about 95 years with the instigation of

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶23

respondents 5 and 6 filed complaint before the first respondent by invoking Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent without adding the petitioner as party to that proceedings. The first respondent conducted enquiry and passed order on 01.06.2020 thereby cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent dated 16.12.2015 vide document No.2663 of 2015 and also all subsequent documents including the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein. Now the third respondent died and her other legal heirs are already parties in this writ petition and though notice was served on them i.e. respondents 5 & 6, no one appeared on behalf of them before this Court either in person or through pleader.

¶24

The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that

¶25

the other legal heirs are already parties in this writ petition and they have not engaged him to appear on their behalf.

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶28

Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings initiated before the first respondent by the third respondent. In fact, after registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner by the fourth respondent, on the instigation of respondents 5 & 6, the third respondent lodged complaint before the first respondent under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Even then, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and she was not served with any notice by the first respondent. Behind her bank, sale deed executed in her favour, is now being cancelled by the impugned order. Further, respondents 5 & 6 failed to come forward before this Court to deny the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and purchased the subject property for valid sale consideration from the fourth respondent. Therefore, the sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled on her back without her knowledge.

¶29

In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2020 of the first respondent is set aside and

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶33

this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

04.06.2024 Neutral citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶37

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶38

lok

¶39

¶40

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Erode, Erode District 2.The Sub Registrar, Sivagiri, Erode District

¶41

W.P.No.8899 of 2020

¶42

04.06.2024

¶43

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

R.Gowri v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.Gowri v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

E.Sundaresan Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

C.Subramanian Vs The Thasildar

M/s.Ece Industries Vs The Chairman

Madhievannan Paramalingam Vs Under Secretary to the Government

P.v.Vijayakumar Vs Dharmapuri Municipality

The Post Manager General Vs The Dsitrict Collector