JeganRaj v. The District Collector / Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15902/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2026; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 Section 23; cancellation of settlement deed; executant senior citizen's statement not recorded; proceedings pursued by wife; writ of certiorari; writ allowed; Tuticorin / Thoothukudi; Revenue Divisional Officer Tribunal; Srivaikkundam Taluk Sub Registrar; remand; natural justice / hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent set aside; petition filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.11919 of 2026) closed. ¶¶42

JeganRaj Vs The District Collector / Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent cancelling the settlement deed can be sustained in law, given that the fourth respondent's own statement was never recorded before the order was passed and he states he never filed the Section 23 petition. +1 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

In view of the categorical statement of the fourth respondent before this Court that he never filed any petition under Section 23 seeking cancellation of the settlement deed, and the admitted fact that his statement was never recorded before passing the impugned order, the order of the second respondent cannot be sustained in law.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings under Section 23 appear to have been pursued by the wife of the fourth respondent and not by the fourth respondent himself, who had executed the settlement deed.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside, and consequently the petition filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 stands dismissed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorari (Art. 226), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — Cancellation of settlement deed under Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent (RDO/Presiding Officer, Tribunal, Tuticorin) cancelling the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent (Selvaraj) in favour of the petitioner, following an earlier round in which this Court (order dated 21.08.2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 26993 of 2022) had set aside the original cancellation order and directed fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing. On re-examination it was found that the Tribunal recorded only the statement of the fourth respondent's wife and never his own; before the High Court the fourth respondent categorically stated through counsel that he never filed any Section 23 petition and that the petitioner had been providing proper care and amenities. Holding that the Section 23 proceedings were pursued by the wife and not by the executant of the deed himself, and that the order was unsustainable in law, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, dismissed the Section 23 petition, closed the connected miscellaneous petition, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15902 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.11919 of 2026

Jegan Raj

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector / Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, Tuticorin.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Presiding Officer, Tribunal for

¶12

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

¶13

Citizens Act,

¶14

Tuticorin.

¶15

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Srivaikkundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶16

4.Selvaraj

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Moo.Mu.AA1/829/2026 dated 15.04.2026 and to quash the same as arbitrary and ultravires.

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.15902 of 2026

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Shabthakiri Raja For Respondents :Mr.S.Sivasubramaniam Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.N.Gurusamy for R4

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent cancelling the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

2.The fourth respondent had allegedly filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to provide him with the physical needs and basic amenities as required under the settlement deed.

¶27

3.The second respondent allowed the petition, and the order was confirmed by the first respondent. Challenging those orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 26993 of 2022. By order dated 21.08.2025, this Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶28

4.After remand, the second respondent again passed the impugned order,

¶29

which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.15902 of 2026

¶33

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶34

6.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the second respondent did not record the statement of the fourth respondent. Instead, only the statement of his wife was recorded, wherein she stated that the petitioner had failed to provide the physical needs and amenities to the fourth respondent.

¶35

7.Before this Court, the fourth respondent, through his counsel, has categorically stated that he never filed any petition under Section 23 of the Act seeking cancellation of the settlement deed. He has further stated that the petitioner has been taking proper care of him by providing all necessary physical needs and amenities, and therefore, there was no reason for seeking cancellation of the settlement deed.

¶36

8.It therefore appears that the proceedings under Section 23 were pursued by the wife of the fourth respondent and not by the fourth respondent himself, who had executed the settlement deed.

¶37

9.In view of the categorical statement made by the fourth respondent and the admitted fact that his statement was never recorded before passing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the order of the second respondent cannot be sustained in law.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.15902 of 2026

¶41

10.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

¶42

15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, stands dismissed.

¶43