W.P.(MD)No.21006 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.21006 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15250 & 15252 of 2022 1.R.Lakshmi 2.G.Tamilarasi 3.K.Anbukarasi @ Anbarasi 4.R.Rajeswari ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam – 612 001. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Taluka Office, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 4.V.Kanagambal @ Kanagam 5.V.Ravi ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned order passed by it in e.f.8221-2021-m4 dated 11.07.2022 and to quash the same as illegal and contrary to law without Power and Jurisdiction conferred on it, passed in a malafide manner and against provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Subramanian For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.4 : Mr.AN.Ramanathan O R D E R Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in e.f. 8221-2021-m4 dated 11.07.2022, whereby, the sale deed dated 03.05.2012 came to be cancelled, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2.The case of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent is the petitioner's mother and she had executed a sale deed in favour of the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 petitioners, after receiving a proper sale consideration vide Document No. 1148 of 2012 dated 03.05.2012. Thereafter, at the instigation of the petitioners' brother, namely one Ravi / fifth respondent, the fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the first respondent. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent, without ascertaining whether it is a settlement deed or sale deed, has arrived at a conclusion that there is no sale and thereby cancelled the sale deed in and by proceedings dated 11.07.2022. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if any settlement deed or gift deed has been executede in favour of the petitioner, with condition, then the same can be challenged before the first respondent under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In the absence of any such condition, no challenge can be made before the first respondent. Moreover, the deed is a sale deed for a valid sale consideration and not a settlement deed. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent is now no more. However, the first respondent, without any jurisdiction has cancelled the same and accordingly, prays for appropriate orders. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 4.He relied 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. 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. 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. 7.Admittedly, the petitioners are the daughters of the fourth respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 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; “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 attract Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz., the second ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 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] 8.In the case on hand, a perusal of the sale deed dated 03.05.2012 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. Consequently, the first respondent could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 11.In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in e.f.8221-2021-m4 dated 11.07.2022 is liable to be set aside. 12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 11.07.2022 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kumbakonam – 612 001. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Taluka Office, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J. MR W.P.(MD)No.21006 of 2022 10.07.2026 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis