P.Mariammal Vs The Appellate Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records in No.Moo.Mu. 2560724/2024/C1 dated 22.10.2024 on the file of the first respondent and confirming the order in Na.KA.No.4791/2024/A1 dated 09.08.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Anandan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari

¶30

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu

¶31

For Respondent No.4 : Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayaraj

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Challenging the proceedings of the first and second respondents in No.Moo.Mu.2560724/2024/C1 dated 22.10.2024 and in Na.KA.No. 4791/2024/A1 dated 09.08.2024, respectively, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶34

2. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is the petitioner's brother. Out of love and affection, the fourth respondent and the petitioner's mother Subbammal, when she was alive, executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner on 08.10.2010 vide Document

¶35

_____________ Page 2 of 9_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶38

No.2157 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother and the fourth respondent preferred a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the second respondent. The second respondent conducted enquiry and passed an order dated 09.08.2024, cancelling the settlement deed dated 08.10.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which came to be dismissed, on the ground that the petitioner is not a senior citizen to prefer appeal as against an order passed under the Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶39

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The settlement deed dated 08.10.2010, executed by the petitioner's mother and the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner is an absolute and irrevocable settlement. He further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only when the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition is breached. In the absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the settlement deed. Further, learned Counsel submitted that during

¶40

_____________ Page 3 of 9_

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶43

the pendency of the Writ Petition, the property which was settled in favour of the petitioner was occupied by the fourth respondent.

¶44

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein, it has been categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally.

¶45

5. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the issue is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

¶46

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶47

_____________ Page 4 of 9_

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶50

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sister of the fourth respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala's case, as referred to supra, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be exercised only if the transfer of property has been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition has been violated. In the absence of such a condition in the deed of transfer, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the transfer. The relevant portion with regard to unilateral cancellation is extracted hereunder;

¶51

“46.The writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is filed by the daughter of the second respondent to quash the order passed by the first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The gift deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was unilaterally cancelled by the second respondent father. The settlement deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent, dated 06.03.2015 is irrevocable and it is a deed of settlement out of love and affection. The second respondent has specifically stated that he has no right to revoke the settlement deed. From the recitals, the settlement does not

¶52

Page 5 of 9

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶55

attract Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz., the second respondent, has not put any condition. In other words, the gift deed is not subject to any condition or terms that the transferor shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the second respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for invoking the power provided to the second respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Even though we agree that the writ petition can be allowed, this Court is unable to decide the writ petition in this batch where question referred to us is different. Hence, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is de-linked and the Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.”

¶56

[Emphasis supplied]

¶57

8. In the case on hand, a perusal of the settlement deed dated 08.10.2010, does not disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to maintain the executant as as pre-condition for transfer of the property. Therefore, the essential requirement for involving Section 23(1) of the Act is absent. Further, though the first respondent has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a senior citizen to prefer an appeal against an order passed under the Act, the first

¶58

_____________ Page 6 of 9_

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶61

respondent has in fact, confirmed the order of the second respondent. Hence, the first and second respondents could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act.

¶62

9. In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first and second respondents in No.Moo.Mu. 2560724/2024/C1 dated 22.10.2024 and in Na.KA.No.4791/2024/A1 dated 09.08.2024, are liable to be set aside.

¶63

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned orders of the first and second respondents dated 22.10.2024 and 09.08.2024, are hereby quashed. However, since the petitioner's mother passed away before filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner need not pay any maintenance and if the fourth respondent is a senior citizen, liberty is granted to the fourth respondent to file a petition before the appropriate authority seeking maintenance, in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶64

27.07.2026

¶65

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR

¶66

_____________ Page 7 of 9_

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.(MD)No.4850 of 2025

¶69

To