Madras High Court
Rukmani vs The District Collector on 11 September, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.9947 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.9947 of 2024
and
W.M.P. Nos. 10962 and 10964 of 2024
Rukmani ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
GST Road,
Chengalpattu – 603001.
2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Division,
Taluk Office Complex,
Opp. Mepz, GST Road,
Kadaperi, West Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Selaiyur Sub Registration Office,
Integrated Tambaram and Selaiyur Sub Registrar Office,
Maruthi Nagar Main Road,
Anjugam Ammaiyar Park Opposite,
Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 73.
4. Govindasamy ... Respondents
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9947 of 2024
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the second respondent in
Na. Ka. No. 83/2023/A and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est
in law and consequently, direct the third respondent to make necessary
mutation in the encumbrance certificate restoring both settlement deeds
dated 19.07.2021 registered as Doc. No. 8360 of 2021 and Doc. No. 8361 of
2021 on the file of SRO, Selaiyur within the time stipulated by this Court.
Consequently direct the third respondent to restore the settlement deeds
dated 19.07.2021 registered as Doc. No. 8360 of 2021 and Doc. No. 8361 of
2021 on the file of SRO, Selaiyur.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.R.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr. M.S.Arasakumar,
Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)
Mr. B.Saravana Kumar (for R3)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
31.05.2023, passed by the second respondent, thereby allowing the
complaint lodged by the fourth respondent and declared the settlement deed
in favour of the petitioner void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent. The
fourth respondent owned the properties comprised in Survey Numbers
(S.Nos.) 83/4A, Old No. 26/1P, New No. 154/3, 52/2D, 59/2, 63/5, 68/2,
21/5, 83/3A, 90/1, 57, 63/1, and 70/2, measuring 18 cents, 4284 sq.ft, 32
cents, 25 cents, 11 cents, 16 cents, 24 cents, 18 cents, 11 cents, 3 cents, 12
cents, and 23 cents. Due to love and affection for the petitioner, the fourth
respondent settled the aforementioned properties through settlement deeds
dated 19.07.2021, registered as Document Nos. 8360 and 8361 of 2021.
2.1. Thereafter, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint under
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) before the second
respondent, alleging that the petitioner exploited the fourth respondent's
blindness and unconsciousness to execute the settlement deeds in her
favour, thereby grabbing the said properties. Furthermore, the fourth
respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to provide maintenance
thereafter. After conducting a due inquiry, the second respondent allowed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the complaint filed by the fourth respondent and declared the settlement
deeds executed in favor of the petitioner to be void.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to attract
the provisions under Section 23(1) of the Act, two conditions must be
fulfilled. Firstly, the settlement deeds should have been executed after the
commencement of the Act. Secondly, they should contain a condition
requiring the settlee to maintain the settlor. Since the settlement deeds
executed by the fourth respondent do not contain such a condition, the
complaint itself is not maintainable under Section 23(1) of the Act.
4. He further submitted that the fourth respondent was deeply hurt
by her brothers' inaction in caring for them in their old age and decided to
take steps in their favor. Therefore, the fourth respondent lodged a
complaint under Section 23 of the Act against her brothers for failing to
provide basic amenities. The complaint was allowed, and her brothers,
aggrieved by the decision, filed an appeal before the District Collector.
While the appeal was pending, they came to an understanding to take care
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the fourth respondent. Believing those words, the fourth respondent and
his wife withdrew the appeal and resided with them, but only on the
instigation of her brothers, the fourth respondent now lodged a complaint
against the petitioner.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1684. He also pointed out that this Court followed the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of S.Vanitha vs. the Deputy
Commissioner reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 holding that the Section 23
of the Act does not contemplate the condition that the transferee shall
provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor should
form part as a recital in the deed of transfer. This condition can be either
express or implied. If there is no express recital in the deed, the Tribunal has
to took around to find out the intention of the transferor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. However, the other learned Single Judge of this Court followed
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Sudesh Chhikara vs.
Ramti Devi and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and held
that the settlement deed should contain specific condition in order to attract
the complaint under Section 23 of the Act. The said judgment also followed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in several judgments.
7. This Court already relied upon the judgment of the S.Vanitha
vs. the Deputy Commissioner reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 and held in
the case of Mohamed Dayan vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6079 (W.P. No. 28190 of 2022 dated
8.09.2023). The said judgment was followed and this Court held in several
cases. Section 23 of the Act does not contemplate the condition that the
transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor
should form part as a recital in the deed of transferor.
8. This court already dealt with the present issue in several writ
petitions including the case of Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.No.28190 of 2022 in which this Court, after
discussing various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
various judgements of High Court, held as follows:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Normal Life” emboldened under Section 4(2) of the Senior
Citizen 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the case on hand is concerned.”
The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
9. Therefore, though there is no specific condition in the
settlement deed to show that the petitioner shall maintain the third
respondent, the complaint is very much maintainable under Section 23 of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the order passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this Writ Petition
is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession
of the subject properties in favour of the fourth respondent within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
11.09.2024
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation/Yes/No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
GST Road,
Chengalpattu – 603001.
2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram Division,
Taluk Office Complex,
Opp. Mepz, GST Road,
Kadaperi, West Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Selaiyur Sub Registration Office,
Integrated Tambaram and Selaiyur Sub Registrar Office,
Maruthi Nagar Main Road,
Anjugam Ammaiyar Park Opposite,
Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 73.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
