W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 and WMP (MD) Nos.17699 and 17700 of 2023 Ramkumar ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram. 2. The Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Ramanathapuram District. 5. The Joint Sub Registrar No.I Ramanathapuram. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 6. R.Veerammal 7. Sribhagan 8. Amarnath 9. S.Bhavani ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 in Moo.Mu. (A4)/1154/2023 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For R1, R2 & R5 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Counsel for State For R6 : Mr.G.Sridharan For R3 & R4 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, Govt.Adv. O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the first respondent, whereby the registered settlement deed executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the fourth son of the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent/father initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by filing an application before the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2023, the first respondent allowed the said application and cancelled the settlement deed executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 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 first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the settlement deed. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 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 20.01.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 5 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the sixth 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. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 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 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 settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 any obligation upon the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the sixth respondent. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first 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, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted his obligation to maintain the sixth respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the sixth respondent from the date of filing of the petition before the first respondent till the date of this order. The arrears accrued thereon shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall thereafter pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month towards maintenance to the sixth respondent on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the arrears or the monthly maintenance, 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 it is open to the sixth respondent to work out his remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including by seeking enforcement of this order, in accordance with law. It is also open to the sixth respondent to work out her remedies before the competent Civil Court, if so advised. 10. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram. 2. The Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Ramanathapuram District. 5. The Joint Sub Registrar No.I Ramanathapuram. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 M.DHANDAPANI ,J. PKN ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.21293 of 2023 DATED : 20.07.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis