Madras High Court
Bose vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum on 9 April, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.2888 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.2888 of 2023
AND
W.M.P.(MD) No.2675 of 2023
Bose ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
The Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal
Madurai District
2.Azhagu
3.Palaniyandi
4.Pitchai
5.Muthumani
6.Gowtham
7.Murugan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Muu.Mu.No.499/2022/J dated
21.06.2022 and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.2888 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Muthukarthikeyan
For R1 : Mr.A.Kannan
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 to 7 : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
ORDER
The petitioner seeks the following relief :
“To quash the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the 1st respondent in
Muu.Mu.No.499/2022/J.”
2. The petitioner states that on 28.07.2003, his father Sothan executed a
settlement deed in his favour for the following properties situated in Paraipatti
Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
R.S. No. Extent of the property
106/3C 60 cents
107 12 cents
2/1A 7 cents
3/2 33 cents
2/3B 10 cents
3. The said Sothan had purchased the properties by way of a registered sale
deeds dated 29.07.1987, 30.12.1989 and 16.03.1994. The petitioner pleads that
the private respondents had abandoned the said Sothan, and it was the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
who took care of his father Sothan till his death. Despite the same, the petitioner
alleges that the said Sothan, on account of the ill advice given by the private
respondents, gave a petition to the 1st respondent to cancel the settlement deed in
document No.1088/2003 dated 28.07.2003. He states that the 1st respondent,
without even issuing a notice to him, proceeded and cancelled the document. He
filed an appeal before the District Collector against the said order. The District
Collector did not entertain the appeal and hence, he has challenged the same by
way of present writ petition.
4. This Court entertained the writ petition and issued notice to the
respondents. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader has entered
appearance for the 1st respondent, and Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned counsel appeared
for the private respondents.
5. The simple plea of Mr.Muthukarthikeyan is that the settlement deed has
been executed in the year 2003 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short “the Act”), had come into force in the State
w.e.f. 29.09.2008 and therefore, it cannot be given retrospective effect. He relies
upon the judgment of this Court in S. Neelavathi Vs. District Magistrate-cum-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
District Collector and Others [2018 (7) MLJ 196] (Per T.Raja, J.), to substantiate
the said plea.
6. Per contra, Mr.T.K.Gopalan appearing for the private respondents urges
that the purpose of the legislation was to prevent a senior citizen who has alienated
the property in favour of his children, hoping to be maintained, and on the same
being belied, to approach the authorities and get the document cancelled. He
relies upon the judgment of this Court in S.Mala Vs. The District Collector,
Namakkal and Others (W.A.No.3582 of 2024 decided on 06.03.2025) to press
home this point. He urges that Sothan had passed away on 02.12.2022 and it is
only thereafter, the writ petition came to be filed. Hence, he pleads that the order
of the 1st respondent be sustained and the writ petition to be dismissed.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on the side of the
petitioner as well as the respondents and also gone through the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
8. The power to cancel a document has been vested with the 1st respondent,
pursuant to Section 23 of the Act. A reading of Section 23(1) of the Act shows
that the authorities constituted under the Act are entitled to declare any document
executed “after the commencement of the Act as null and void”. The Act has not
been given retrospective effect. Hence, with respect to documents executed prior
to the enactment, the remedy is to approach the jurisdictional civil Court. Hence,
despite the fervent pleas of Mr.T.K.Gopalan, I am not inclined to take a different
view from the one taken by Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Raja (as he then was).
9. During the course of arguments, it has come to the notice of this Court
that the writ petitioner has presented O.S.No.103 of 2019, seeking partition and
separate possession, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti. The
respondent 2 to 7 are merely representing the estate of the deceased Sothan and
they have been arrayed in the writ petition as his legal representatives. Had
Sothan been alive, despite this writ petition being allowed on this technical point,
he would have been entitled to move to the civil Court and seek for declaration
that the document executed for maintenance has to be declared as inoperative as
the writ petitioner had not maintained him. Since the respondents 2 to 7 represent
the estate of the deceased Sothan, the plea that could have been taken by Sothan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
can also be taken by his legal representatives. Therefore, leaving it open to the
respondents 2 to 7 to move the jurisdictional civil Court either by way of an
independent suit or by moving a counter claim in pending suit in O.S.No.103 of
2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, this writ petition is
allowed.
10. Needless to add, the right to be maintained accrues month on month and
therefore, the cause of action too accrues month on month. It is not in dispute that
Sothan died on 02.12.2022. A suit for declaration can be filed within three years
from the date of death of Sothan. Further more, Sothan had been strengthened by
the impugned order on 21.06.2022. Hence, there is enough time for the
respondents to move the civil Court.
With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed.
No costs. Connected W.M.Ps are closed.
09.04.2025
gya
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
The Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal
Madurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
gya
09.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:49:50 pm )
