Madras High Court
P.Kumaraswamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.14987 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.14987 of 2024
P.Kumaraswamy .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer,
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act,
Office of South Coimbatore Revenue Divisional Office,
Coimbatore District.
2.Mrs.Kannammal @ Pongiyammal
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sulur, Coimbatore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records
of the impugned order Pa.Mu.3959/2020/A1, dated 06.06.2022 passed by
the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Umapathy
For R1 & R4 : Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, GA
For R2 : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
For R3 : Mr.S.Rajesh, GA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.No.14987 of 2024
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent dated 06.06.2022 cancelling the settlement deed
dated 04.11.2016 executed by the third respondent in favour of the
petitioner, her son.
2. The petitioner is the son of the second respondent. The second
respondent owned agricultural lands to an extent of 3 acres and 61 cents
comprised in Survey Nos.184/1, 185, Selakarisal Village, Sulur Taluk;
Survey No.22/6B, Kallapalayam Village. The second respondent, out of
her love and affection towards the petitioner, executed a settlement dated
04.11.2016 bearing Document No.11428/2016 on the file of Sub-
Registrar Office, Sulur, settling the above said properties in favour of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to maintain the second
respondent and as such, she filed a complaint under Section 23(2) of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). After issuance of notice and after
recording the statement from the petitioner as well as the second
respondent, the first respondent allowed the complaint and cancelled the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
settlement deed dated 04.11.2016 executed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in order
to invoke the provision under Section 23(2) of the Act, one has to
comply twin conditions, namely, (a) the documents should have been
executed after coming into force of the Act; and (b) it should contain a
clause imposing an obligation on the settlor or transferee to maintain
settlor or transferee. In the absence of second clause, the complaint
lodged by the second respondent is not maintainable under Section 23(2)
of the Act.
4. On perusal of the records, it clear that the second respondent
owned the subject properties and on compulsion and false promise, the
second respondent executed a settlement deed dated 04.11.2016
executing the subject properties in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter,
the petitioner failed to maintain the second respondent and she was also
driven out from her residence. That apart, she was also constrained in a
separate room and tortured by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The issue on hand has already been dealt with by this Court in
Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector. (W.P.No.28190 of 2022, dated
08.09.2023). For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“33. Close reading of the principles considered by the
various High Courts and the Supreme Court, there is no
ambiguity with reference to the purpose and object sought
to be achieved under the provisions of the Senior Citizen
Act. Section 4(2) of the Act, unambiguously stipulates that
the obligation of the children or the relative, as the case
may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of
such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.
34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase “lead
a normal life” Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior
Citizen Rules, enumerates that “it shall be the duty of the
District Collector to ensure that life and property of senior
citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live
with security and dignity”. Therefore, normal life includes
security and dignity. Thus the normal life as indicated under
Section 4(2) of the Act, is not mere life, but a life with
security and dignity. In the context of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, life includes decent medical facility,
food, shelter with dignity and security. All such combined
necessities of human life is falling under the term “Normal
Life” emboldened under Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act. Therefore, simply providing food and shelter would be
insufficient. But life includes providing of decent medical
facilities, food, shelter and other requirements with dignity
in commensuration with the status of the family and taking
into consideration of the living style of the senior citizen
throughout.
35. Therefore, the children defending their case
merely on the ground that they are willing to provide food
and shelter, cannot be taken as a ground for the purpose of
sustaining the Settlement Deed executed by the senior
citizen. The requirement of the provisions are to be complied
in its real spirit and in the event of an iota of doubt, the
Authority Competent is empowered to cancel the Settlement
Deed or Gift Deed, as the case may be, in order to protect
the normal life of senior citizen.
36. Section 4(3) denotes, the obligation of the children
to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such
parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be,
so that such parents may lead a normal life. Therefore, it is
an obligation on the part of the children to maintain his or
her parents and ensure the parents to lead a normal life. In
the event of complaint, the Authorities Competent are
expected to ensure that the senior citizen and their life and
dignity are protected. The above provision is to be read in
conjunction with the Rules framed under the Act.
37. Rule 20 of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rules, provide duties and powers of the District Collector.
The District Collector is casted upon the duty to ensure that
the life and property of citizens of the District are protected
and other people to live with security and dignity. Therefore,
it is the statutory duty on the part of the District Collector to
protect the safety and security of senior citizens in his
District. Thus the complaint filed by the senior citizen,
cannot be treated lightly. Such complaints are to be enquired
into in a pragmatic manner, so as to understand the real
grievances of the senior citizen and accordingly, all
appropriate actions are to be initiated to provide safety,
security and to protect the dignity of the senior citizen.
38. The Kerala High Court observed in the case of
Radhamani and Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of the
Senior Citizen Act, cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage
of the senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates
that “Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement
of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property,
subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the
basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor
and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such
amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property
shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or
under undue influence and shall at the option of the
transferor be declared void by the Tribunal”. The phrase “
subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
basic amenities” does not mean that the Gift or Settlement
Deed should contain any such condition expressly. “Subject
to the condition” as employed in Section 23(1), is to be
holistically understood with reference to the subsequent
phrase i.e., “deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion
or undue influence”. Both the phrases would amplify that the
deeming clause should be considered so as to form an
opinion that the phrase “subject to condition” amounts to an
implied condition to maintain the senior citizen and any
violation would be sufficient for the purpose of invoking
Section 23(1) of the Act, to cancel the Gift or Settlement
Deed executed by the senior citizen.
39. To elaborate, the phrase “subject to condition”
employed under Section 23(1) of the Act, is to be understood
with reference to the love and affection by the senior citizen
towards the person in favour of whom such Gift or
Settlement Deed has been executed.
40. “Love and Affection” is an implied condition in
the context of Section 23(1) of the Act, and therefore, there
need not be any express condition in the Settlement Deed for
the purpose of maintaining the senior citizen. Refusal of
maintenance after executing the Settlement Deed or Gift
Deed, is the ground for invoking the deemed ground of fraud
or coercion or undue influence. When the deeming clause
has been incorporated under the provisions of Section 23(1)
of the Act, 'Love and Affection' to be construed as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed.
Thus the condition need not be expressly made in the
document and the love and affection, which resulted in
execution of the Deed by the senior citizen is to be construed
as a condition for the purpose of invoking the deeming
clause for declaring the document as fraud or coercion or
undue influence.
41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior
Citizens Act, is to consider the human conduct towards them.
When the human conduct is indifferent towards senior
citizen and their security and dignity are not protected, then
the provisions of the Act, is to be pressed into service to
safeguard the security and dignity of senior citizen.
Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the provisions are
of paramount importance and Section 23 of the Act, cannot
be mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint
filed by the senior citizen on the ground that there is no
express condition for maintaining the senior citizen. Even in
the absence of any express condition in the document, “Love
and Affection” being the consideration for execution of Gift
or Settlement Deed, such love and affection becomes a
deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to
invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in
respect of the order passed by the second respondent in the
present case.
42. The human conduct in the context of the senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
citizen Act, is to be understood considering the relationship
between the senior citizen and the beneficiaries of the Gift or
Settlement Deed. Mostly the parents are executing the
document in favour of their children. Since they may not be
in a position to maintain the property at their old-age and
more-so, they are intending to visibly express their love and
affection towards their children by settling their properties.
In some cases, the parents during their old-age are settling
their property in order to avoid conflict between their
children and to ensure that all children get equal share. If at
all the parents decide to settle the property in favour of a son
or daughter, then they are doing so, only with love and
affection and with a fond hope that they will be taken care of
by the son or daughter during their old-age. Thus love and
affection, being the consideration and implied condition,
within the meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act. The
subsequent non-maintenance of senior citizen would attract
Section 23(1) of the Act and the Authorities in such
circumstances are empowered to declare the document as
null and void.
43. Therefore, Section 23 is referable as a conduct of
the transferee prior to and after execution of the Deed of Gift
or Settlement, as the case may be. For all purposes, Section
23 is to be understood taking note of the conduct of the
transferee and not with reference to the specific stipulation
of condition in the Deed of Gift or Settlement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
44. In respect of the judgment relied on by the
petitioner in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and
Another (cited supra), the Three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Vanitha vs.
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban and District and
Others (cited supra) is to be followed. There are several
judgments to establish that the purpose and object of the
Senior Citizens Act, is to be complied with in its letter and
spirit in order to protect the life, security and dignity of
senior citizens. Thus the judgment relied on by the petitioner
is of no avail as far as the present facts and circumstances of
the case on hand is concerned.”
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no error or illegality in the
order passed by the first respondent and accordingly, the writ petition
fails and it is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No Costs.
W.M.P.No.14987 of 2024 is closed.
09.08.2024
Index: yes/no
Neutral citation: yes/no
rkm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer,
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act,
Office of South Coimbatore Revenue Divisional Office,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sulur, Coimbatore District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rkm
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
