Madras High Court
Sarasu vs R.Kamalam on 11 October, 2023
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
Sarasu .. Appellant
Vs
1.R.Kamalam
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Presiding Officer,
Tribunal for Special Cases and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udayarpalayam Division,
Ariyalur District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.324 of 2022.
For the Appellant : Mr.A.Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kamadevan
for respondent No.1
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
: Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
for respondent No.2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant;
Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the first respondent; and,
Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent
No.2.
2. The appellant was original third respondent in a writ
petition filed by the first respondent bearing W.P.No.324 of 2022.
3. The present first respondent/original writ petitioner had
challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Tribunal for
Special Cases and the Revenue Divisional Officer. The third
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
respondent had cancelled the settlement deed executed between
the present appellant and the first respondent.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Single Judge did not consider the case put forth by the appellant
before the third respondent. The third respondent had considered
the case of both the parties and passed the order.
5. According to learned counsel for the first respondent, the
settlement deed is of the year 2002. The Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act came in the year 2007. The said
Act did not have retrospective effect.
6. The learned Single Judge has observed the present
appellant has already filed O.S.No.105 of 2020 before the Sub
Court, Ariyalur, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed and that
the subject matter is sub judice before the civil court. The learned
Single Judge further observed that the order passed by him shall
not preclude the civil court from examining the settlement deed, the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
cancellation of the settlement deed and other subsequent
transactions on the property in accordance with the evidence
produced before the civil court. It is also observed that the parties
should be granted full opportunity to produce necessary oral and
documentary evidence.
7. In view of the pendency of the suit before the civil court
and the observations made by the learned Single Judge, no
prejudice would be caused to any of the parties.
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
11.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
To:
1.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Tribunal for Special Cases and Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udayarpalayam Division,
Ariyalur District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.2745 of 2023
11.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
