W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.11727, 11728 of 2022 and 1030 of 2023 S.Raja ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Dindigul. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Dindigul Joint Sub Registrar No.II, District Registration Office Complex, Dindigul. 4.Subramani ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the first respondent's impugned order dated 17.05.2022 in Na.Ka.No.9052/2021/A1 and quash the same as illegal. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 For Petitioner : Ms. A.Arul Jenifer For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Counsel for the State For R-4 : Mr.V.Thirumal ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 17.05.2022 made in Na.Ka.No.9052/2021/A1. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent, who is the petitioner's father, was the absolute owner of the subject property. Out of love and affection, he executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 01.09.2021 vide Document No.5691 of 2021 in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner took possession of the property and also contributed towards the maintenance of his father. Subsequently, owing to disputes that arose between the parties, the fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the Settlement Deed. The second respondent, by order dated 17.05.2022, ordered for cancelling the Settlement Deed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for State appearing for the official respondents submitted that the dispute may be decided in the light of the settled legal position governing cancellation of settlement deeds under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and left the matter to the discretion of this Court. 4. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4343, has categorically held that a settlement deed cannot be cancelled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, unless the transfer is subject to a condition requiring the transferee to provide the transferor with basic amenities and basic physical needs. The relevant observations are as follows: "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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 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 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.” [Emphasis supplied]" 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 5. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in M.M. Ramesh v. M.S. Manikavasagam and another, reported in 2026 (2) CTC 513, has held that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, operate prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. In the present case, the Settlement Deed dated 01.09.2021 is an absolute and irrevocable settlement deed. A perusal of its recitals shows that it does not contain any clause obligating the petitioner to maintain the fourth respondent, nor does it reserve any right in favour of the fourth respondent to revoke or cancel the settlement in the event of non-maintenance. In the absence of such a condition, the authorities functioning under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have no jurisdiction to annul the registered Settlement Deed by invoking Section 23 of the Act. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in Sasikala (supra), the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. However, setting aside the order of cancellation does not absolve the petitioner of his statutory and moral obligation to maintain his aged father. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the fourth respondent died. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. However, liberty is granted to the legal heirs of the fourth respondent/senior citizen to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Dindigul. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Dindigul Joint Sub Registrar No.II, District Registration Office Complex, Dindigul. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG W.P(MD)No.16216 of 2022 10.07.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis