W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).No.13455 and 13457 of 2022 Amirthavalli ...Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Mangu ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.A2/10458/2021 dated 11.05.2022 and quash the same. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari Counsel for State-for R1 to R-3 Mr.V.Thirumal for Mr.K.Seemaraj for R-4 ORDER Aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the second respondent, whereby the registered gift settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 06.04.2009 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the fourth respondent made an application before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the said gift settlement deed. The second respondent, by the impugned order dated 11.05.2022, observed that the petitioner had failed to take care of the fourth respondent and consequently directed cancellation of the gift settlement deed. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 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 settlement deed without any such conditional clause. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the settlement deed. 4. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, the learned counsel submitted that, it was 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. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 5. The learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would fairly submit that the registered gift settlement deed dated 06.04.2009 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fourth 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. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Admittedly, 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 of transfer, the jurisdiction under 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 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. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the document in question is a registered gift settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fourth respondent. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Act is absent. Consequently, the second 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. 9. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the fourth respondent is a senior citizen and that an earlier order dated 01.02.2021 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month had already been passed. Having regard to the age and needs of the fourth respondent and the obligation of the petitioner, being his daughter, to maintain 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 him, this Court is of the considered view that the maintenance amount requires enhancement. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner/daughter is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month towards the maintenance of the fourth respondent. The said amount shall be paid on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month, commencing from the succeeding month. 11. The petitioner is further directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month, in terms of the earlier order dated 01.02.2021, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same has not already been paid. 12. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG W.P.(MD)No.18459 of 2022 10.07.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis