Allowed¶44

Pachakkal v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WP(MD)/14650/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007; cancellation of registered settlement deed; condition of basic amenities and physical needs; Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2024) 14 SCC 225; want of jurisdiction of District Magistrate/RDO; certiorari allowed; Rs.10,000 per month maintenance direction; Madurai Bench Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed without costs; impugned cancellation order dated 03.06.2022 set aside; petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance to the third respondent by the 7th of each English calendar month; impleading petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶44

Pachakkal Vs The District Magistrate cum District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the first and second respondents had jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to cancel the transfer document in the absence of any condition therein requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Adopting the Supreme Court's ruling in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi ((2024) 14 SCC 225), where the document of transfer does not expressly incorporate a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act cannot be exercised for declaring the transfer void.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the registered settlement deed contained no recital imposing any obligation on the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 was absent, and the first respondent had no jurisdiction to direct cancellation of the registered settlement deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶38

Key takeaways

The impugned cancellation order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.ratio¶38
While setting aside the impugned order, the Court directs the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the third respondent, on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month.ratio¶39
On default in payment of the monthly maintenance, it is open to the third respondent to work out her remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including seeking enforcement of the maintenance order, in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari allowed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J., 09.07.2026) in W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022. V. Durgadevi, daughter of the third respondent Shanthi, challenged the order dated 03.06.2022 (Na.Ka.No.14473/2022/G2) of the District Magistrate cum District Collector, Thanjavur, confirming the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam order dated 09.03.2022 (Na.Ka.No.2672-2020-A-4) cancelling a registered settlement deed dated 28.09.2017 (Document No. 2204 of 2017, SRO Swamimalai) executed by Shanthi in the petitioner's favour. Applying Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, (2024) 14 SCC 225, the Court held that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits annulment of a transfer only where the transfer document expressly conditions it on the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor; the settlement deed contained no such recital, so the authorities lacked jurisdiction and the impugned order was set aside. The petitioner, who admitted her maintenance obligation, was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the third respondent by the 7th of each English calendar month, with liberty to the latter, on default, to seek enforcement before the competent authority under the Act. Allowed without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.10384 of 2022 and 10972 of 2023

V.Durgadevi

... Petitioner(s)

vs.

The District Magistrate Cum Direct Collector, Thanjavur District.

¶11

The Sub Divisional Executive, Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶12

3. Shanthi

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the District Magistrate cum District Collector of Thanjavur, the 1st respondent herein dated 03.06.2022 vide Na.Ka.No.14473/2022/G2 confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer of Kumbakonam dated 09.03.2022 vide Na.Ka.No.2672-2020-A-4 and to and quash

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶18

the same as illegal without jurisdiction and violation of Section 2(h) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Rajaraman For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Ramasamy, Counsel for State For R3 : Mr.K.Appadurai

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the first respondent, whereby the registered gift settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of the third respondent. The third respondent executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 28.09.2017, vide Document No. 2204 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Swamimalai, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the third respondent made an application before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the said Sale Deed. The second respondent ordered to cancel the document. Aggrieved by

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶26

the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, observed that the petitioner had failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor/third respondent and consequently directed cancellation of the settlement deed. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶27

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have jurisdiction under Section 23 only in respect of transfers by way of gift or settlement, where the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. In the present case, the document in question is a Sale Deed and not a gift or settlement deed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the first and second respondents had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the Sale Deed. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶28

3/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶31

The learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed dated 28.09.2017 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fifth respondent. In the absence of such a condition incorporated in the document of transfer, the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, would not be attracted.

¶32

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶33

The issue is no longer res integra . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, has held that the deeming fiction under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can be invoked only when the transfer is made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and the transferee fails to fulfil such condition. Unless such a condition is expressly incorporated in the document

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶37

of transfer, the jurisdiction under Section 23 cannot be exercised for declaring the transfer void. The Supreme Court further held that the authorities constituted under the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to annul a transfer in the absence of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 23.

¶38

Coming to the present case, admittedly, the document in question is a registered settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fifth respondent. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to direct cancellation of the registered settlement deed by invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside.

¶39

However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted her obligation to maintain the third respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the third

¶40

5/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶43

respondent, on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the monthly maintenance, it is open to the third respondent to work out her remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including seeking enforcement of the maintenance order, in accordance with law.

¶44

9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The impleading petition stands closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

09.07.2026

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.14540 of 2022

¶50

¶51