Kerala High Court
R.Sathyaseelan vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.12444 OF 2020(E)
PETITIONER:
R.SATHYASEELAN
S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, 'SHALEENA', VENCHAVODE,
SREEKARIYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17 REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, WIFE-SMT.B.SALINI, AGED
65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SHALEENA', VENJAVODE,
SREEKARYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN
SMT.M.SANTHY
SMT.BEJLA MARY BEJOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
(MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR
CITIZENS ACT, 2007), COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
(MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND
WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043
4 N.CHANDRA BABU
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.LATE NADESAN, THOPPIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKAM WARD,
KACHERI.P.O, KOLLAM-691601
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU
R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.SEETHA
R4 BY ADV. SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
WP(C).No.12444 OF 2020(E) 2
SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.12444 OF 2020(E) 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is a senior citizen and the 4th respondent is his
nephew. In the year 2016, the petitioner executed a settlement deed vide
No. 860 of 2016 of the Kollam SRO, settling an extent of 2.5 cents of land in
Old Sy. No.7721/3 of Kollam West Village in favour of the 4th respondent.
The consideration stated in the deed is the love and affection that the
petitioner had towards the 4th respondent. The petitioner states that he had
executed Ext.P1 settlement deed on a clear understanding that the 4th
respondent would provide the basic amenities to him and his wife during their
lifetime. After execution of the deed, the 4th respondent started showing an
indifferent attitude and refused to provide for the basic amenities and
physical needs of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, he approached
the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act' for brevity) and filed Ext.P2
complaint under Section 23 of the Act seeking to declare as void, Ext.P1
settlement deed. After holding an inquiry under section 8 of the Act, the
Tribunal refused to invoke its powers under Section 23 of the Act. Challenging
the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal re-appreciated the facts and circumstances
and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The above
orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri. Abraham P. George, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel
appearing for the party respondent. I have gone through Ext.P1 settlement
deed and have perused the impugned orders.
3. A Full Bench of this Court in Subhashini V. District Collector1
had occasioned to answer a reference specifically on the extent to which
Section 23 of the Act can be invoked in annulling the rights obtained in
immovable property by transfer inter - vivos. It was held that Section 23(1)
is prospective and the provision insists on there being an express condition,
written as part of the recitals in the deed. In paragraph No.52 of the
judgment, it was held that the condition as required under Section 23(1) of
the Act for provisions of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior
citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer
can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a
similar gratuitous transfer. It is the jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will
have to look into before invoking Section 23(1) and proceeds on a summary
enquiry. In the case on hand, a perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the recitals
1 [2020 (5) KLT 533]
in the said deed do not contain any provision reserving the right of the
petitioner to basic amenities and basic physical needs. The Tribunal as well as
the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is living under better
circumstances and he did not even require maintenance. Though the claim of
the petitioner was rejected on other grounds, in view of Subhashini (supra),
I am of the view that no interference is warranted.
This writ petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.860/2016 OF SRO, KOLLAM DATED 2.5.2016
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT - MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
DATED 26.12.2018
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P4
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED
12.05.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 7.09.2018 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER
IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE B.SALINI
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
