W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.21152 of 2024 Praveen ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur. 2.Mahalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent order in proceedings Pa.Mu.A4/2547/2024 dated 20.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Madhu For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramasamy (R1) Counsel for State : Mr.M.Saravanan (R2) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the first respondent cancelling the registered settlement deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said order. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the son of the second respondent. The second respondent, out of love and affection, executed an irrevocable settlement deed dated 06.11.2019, registered as Document No.3054 of 2019, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the second respondent submitted an application before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the said settlement deed. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 20.08.2024, observed that the petitioner had failed to maintain and take care of the second respondent and consequently directed cancellation of the settlement deed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 Writ Petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act only in respect of transfers by way of gift or settlement where the transfer is made subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide the transferor with basic amenities and physical needs. In the present case, the document in question is a settlement deed which does not contain any such condition. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the first respondent had no jurisdiction either to entertain the application or to direct cancellation of the settlement deed. 4.Placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4343, the learned counsel submitted that it has been categorically held that, in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 requiring the transferee to maintain the transferor, the power under Section 23(1) of the Act cannot be exercised. It has also been held that a registered settlement deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 5.The learned counsel for State appearing for the first respondent fairly submitted that the registered settlement deed dated 06.11.2019 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the second 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 made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 7.Admittedly, the document in question is a registered settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the petitioner to provide the second respondent with basic amenities and physical needs. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is absent. Consequently, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act and direct cancellation of the registered settlement deed. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4343, the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8.It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted his obligation to maintain the second respondent. Taking note of the said submission, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) per month towards the maintenance of the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 second respondent, on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. In the event of any default in payment of the monthly maintenance, it is open to the second respondent to work out her remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, including seeking enforcement of the maintenance order, in the manner known to law. It is further directed that the petitioner shall continue to provide suitable residential accommodation to the second respondent or, if she is already residing in the subject property, her right of residence shall not be disturbed except in accordance with law. 9.With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 24.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 M.DHANDAPANI, J. ps W.P(MD)No.24844 of 2024 24.07.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis