Madras High Court
Pushpavalli vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 November, 2023
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.(MD)No.18210 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.18210 of 2021
Pushpavalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cum Chief Officer of Senior Citizen
Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.Vani Devi
3.Saravanakumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide his
Proceedings in Mu.Mu. No.559/2019 / E dated 20.09.2021 and to quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to cancel
the Settlement deed No.1259/2016 executed by the Petition in favour of
the 2nd Respondent on 29.03.2016.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.18210 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil
For R-1 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
For R-2 : No Appearance
For R-3 : Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.559/2019 / E dated
20.09.2021 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to
cancel the settlement deed that was executed by the petitioner in favour of
the second respondent on 29.03.2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the
second respondent on 29.03.2016 with a fond hope that she will be taken
care by the second and third respondents, who are none other than her
daughter and son. Unfortunately, the children did not take care of the
petitioner and an attempt was also made to dispossess the petitioner from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the property. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made an
application before the District Registrar, Madurai, seeking for the
cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the second
respondent and it was forwarded to the file of the first respondent. An
enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and the impugned order
dated 20.09.2021 came to be issued dismissing the application and
directing the petitioner to work out her remedy in the pending suits.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this
Court.
4. On carefully going through the order passed by the first
respondent, it is seen that the application submitted by the petitioner under
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,
was rejected mainly on the ground that three suits were pending before the
Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai and hence, the first respondent
thought it fit to direct the petitioner to work out her remedy in the pending
suits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. One = suit was filed by the husband of the petitioner in
O.S.No.1172 of 2017 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of
half share in the property and also for declaring the settlement deed
executed in favour of the second respondent as null and void and for other
consequential reliefs. O.S.No.317 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner
seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. O.S.No.480 of 2020 was
filed by the third respondent seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suits that were filed by the
petitioner and her husband came to be dismissed for default and the suit
filed by the son viz., the third respondent is pending.
6. This Court also carefully gone through the settlement deed
dated 29.03.2016 and it is seen that there was no specific condition for
providing maintenance to the petitioner which entitles the cancellation of
the documents. In view of the same, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 will squarely apply to the facts of
the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the first respondent. It is left open to
the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent Civil Court by
establishing her right to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of
the second respondent. Except giving this liberty to the petitioner, no
further orders can be passed in this Writ Petition.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
24.11.2023
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
tsg
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cum Chief Officer of Senior Citizen
Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
tsg
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
