Disposed¶31

S.Palanisamy v. the District Collector / Appellate Tribunal

Madras HC10 Jan 2025WP/17422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari refused; Article 226 scope extremely narrow; fraud and misrepresentation in sale deed execution not decidable on affidavits, evidence required; senior citizen (aged 92) complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act rejected by District Collector/Appellate Tribunal, Dharapuram, Tiruppur; petitioner directed to pending civil suits O.S.Nos.274/2018, 275/2018, 279/2018, 242/2020 before Sub Court, Dharapuram; O.S.274/2018 (Chellammal) dismissed 29.08.2024; writ petition disposed, W.M.P. closed, no costs; Madras High Court, 10.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of with observations directing the petitioner to pursue his pending civil suits before the Civil Court; connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶31

S.Palanisamy Vs the District Collector / Appellate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue to quash the first respondent's order dated 29.01.2024 rejecting the petitioner's complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The learned Sub Judge, Dharapuram, is permitted to examine the issues raised without being influenced by any order of this Court.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The scope of enquiry under Article 226 is extremely narrow; whether the execution of the sale deed was tainted with fraud or misrepresentation could never be addressed on affidavits and counter affidavits alone, and evidence on the attendant circumstances is required.

¶30

Key takeaways

Substantial relief could be obtained only before the Civil Court; since the petitioner had already filed civil suits, the writ petition was disposed of instead of quashing the impugned order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (single member bench, C.V. Karthikeyan, J.), decision dated 10.01.2025: W.P.No.17422 of 2024 filed by S. Palanisamy, a 92-year-old senior citizen, sought certiorari quashing the order of the District Collector / Appellate Tribunal (proceedings Muu. Mu.26577/2023/E1, dated 29.01.2024) rejecting his complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act regarding a sale deed he allegedly signed at the Sub-Registrar office trusting his brother's son (third respondent, Manivel). The court held that the scope of enquiry under Article 226 is extremely narrow and that whether the sale deed was tainted by fraud or misrepresentation could never be addressed on affidavits and counter affidavits, requiring evidence; the Sub Judge, Dharapuram, was to examine the issues free of any influence from this Court. Since the petitioner had already filed civil suits (O.S.Nos.274/2018, 275/2018, 279/2018 and 242/2020 pending before the Sub Court, Dharapuram), substantial relief lay only before the Civil Court; O.S.No.274/2018, a similar suit by one Chellammal, had been dismissed by judgment dated 29.08.2024. The writ petition stood disposed of, the connected W.M.P.No.19204 of 2024 was closed, and no costs were awarded.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.17422 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.19204 of 2024

S.Palanisamy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector / Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Tribunal For Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶12

3.Manivel .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Muu. Mu.26577/2023/E1 dated 29.01.2024 and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner .. Mr.C.Prakasam For R1 & R2 .. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Govt. Advocate For R3 .. Ms.R.Priyadharsini

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records relating to an order passed by the 1^st respondent, District Collector / Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District in proceedings No.Muu. Mu. 26577/2023/E1 dated 29.01.2024 and to quash the same.

¶19

2.The petitioner is a senior citizen. On the date of filing the writ

¶20

petitioner he was aged 92 years. He is deeply aggrieved by the actions of the 3^rd respondent, his brother's son on whom he had placed trust that the said

¶21

3^rd respondent who look after him in his old age. It is contended that the son of the petitioner is unfortunately afflicted with unsound mind. The petitioner could not look after his son. The 3^rd respondent assured that he would look after the petitioner and also the son of the petitioner. The daughter is also living with the petitioner. It is stated that the 3^rd respondent took the petitioner to the Sub-Registrar office and the petitioner trusting the words of the 3^rd respondent had signed certain documents, which later

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

turned out to be a Sale Deed with respect to the property belonging to the

¶25

petitioner herein. The petitioner had given a complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The said representation, came to be rejected by the District Collector by the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 since the District Collector had observed

¶26

that with respect to said execution of Sale Deed and seeking a declaration that such execution of Sale Deed is mired with fraud and misrepresentation, O.S.No.274/2018, 275/2018, 279/2018 and 242/2020 are pending before the Sub Court at Dharapuram.

¶27

3.It is only appropriate that the learned Sub Judge, Dharapuram, is permitted to examine the issues raised without being influenced by any order of this Court. It is also informed O.S.No.274/2018 had been dismissed by judgment dated 29.08.2024. That was a suit filed by Chellammal, who also claimed the similar relief. It is only appropriate that the petitioner concentrates on the suits, which he had filed, and substantial relief could be obtained only before the Civil Court. The scope of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely narrow and issue of execution of sale deed and surrounding circumstances whether it was tainted with

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

fraud or misrepresentation could never be addressed on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits. Evidence is required on all those attendant circumstances. Since the petitioner had filed civil suits already, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶31