Allowed

A.v.Rajendran v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC15 Nov 2024WP(MD)/3839/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a unilateral revocation deed cancelling a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner by his mother. Following the Full Bench ruling that unilateral cancellation of a settlement or sale deed is impermissible, the Court set aside the revocation deed and granted liberty to the mother to seek maintenance under the Senior Citizens Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revocation deed dated 21.09.2015 set aside; liberty to sixth respondent to approach statutory authority for maintenance under the 2007 Act; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

A.v.Rajendran Vs the Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.3839 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.3839 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3035 to 3037 of 2017

¶8

A.V.Rajendran .... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

2.The Joint Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Thanjavur.

¶13

3.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Thanjavur.

¶14

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

¶15

5.The Tahsildar, Thanjavur.

¶16

6.Kanagam ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the

¶18

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

¶19

1/5

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.3839 of 2017

¶21

records relating to the registered impugned Revocation Deed dated 21.09.2015 vide Doc.No.5495 of 2015 on the file of the third respondent executed by the sixth respondent, quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vadivel

¶23

For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader

¶24

For R-6 : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard Mr.P.Vadivel, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶27

Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.Raja Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent.

¶28

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Revocation Deed dated 21.09.2015 vide Doc.No.5495 of 2015 on the file of the third respondent executed by the sixth respondent.

¶29

3. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no more res integra . This Court has elaborately considered the issue of unilateral cancellation

¶30

and the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue

¶31

Divisional Office cum Sub Collector and another made in W.P.

¶32

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

¶33

2/5

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.3839 of 2017

¶35

(MD).Nos.6889 of 2020 etc., batch cases dated 02.09.2022 held that

¶36

unilateral cancellation of settlement of sale deed is not permissible.

¶37

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that the petitioner who is the son of the sixth respondent, is not taking care of his mother. Therefore, the sixth respondent had cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of her son, the petitioner herein.

¶38

In view of the settled provision of law, unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned Revocation Deed dated 21.09.2015 is set aside. It is for the parties to establish their stand over the properties in a proper civil suit.

¶39

6. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, liberty is hereby granted to the sixth respondent to approach the statutory authority under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to seek maintenance and support from the petitioner. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the authority from dealing with the application, if so filed by the sixth respondent, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶40

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

¶41

3/5

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.3839 of 2017

¶43

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶44

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

14.11.2024