Madras High Court
M.K.Adkithadevi vs The District Collector on 18 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.267 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.267 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1897, 1898 and 7100 of 2025
M.K.Adkithadevi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Sub Collector,
Padmanabapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District.
4. Muthu Nadar ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.26670
of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 on the file of this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.267 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.Antony R.Julian
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan,
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
Mr.T.Wins for R4.
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The appellant / Akithadevi is the daughter of the fourth respondent
/ Muthu Nadar. Muthu Nadar executed a settlement deed dated
03.07.2000 settling the petition mentioned house property in her favour.
The settlement deed contained a stipulation that Muthu Nadar and his
wife can reside in the settled property during their life time. While so,
Muthu Nadar filed petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before Maintenance
Tribunal for cancelling the settlement deed. The Maintenance Tribunal
vide order dated 14.10.2022 declined to cancel the settlement deed
instead it only passed restraint order against the settlee (appellant herein).
Aggrieved by the order of Maintenance Tribunal, Muthu Nadar filed an
appeal before the District Collector, Kanyakumari District. The District
Collector vide communication dated 15.05.2023 addressed to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari called upon the Superintendent
of Police, Kanyakumari to ensure that Akithadevi does not in any way
interfere with the residential rights of Muthu Nadar (Settlor). In the same
communication, Muthu Nadar was also informed that he has to move the
registering authority to get the deed cancelled. He added that the appeal
itself is not maintainable. While the matter stood thus, Muthu Nadar
once again moved the appellate authority by filing an appeal petition on
25.09.2024. The District Collector, Kanyakumari / appellate authority
vide proceedings dated 23.10.2024 set aside the order of the Maintenance
Tribunal and cancelled the settlement deed dated 03.07.2000 executed in
favour of the appellant herein. Challenging the same, the appellant
herein filed W.P.(MD)No.26670 of 2024. The learned Single Judge
applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1684 (Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi) dismissed the writ petition
on 17.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.
2.We heard the learned counsel on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
3.Even though the communication dated 15.05.2023 has been
addressed by the District Collector only to the Superintendent of Police,
in effect, the District Collector had already taken a stand that the appeal
preferred by Muthu Nadar against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by
the Maintenance Tribunal is not maintainable. This according to us is
clearly a wrong understanding of law. But the fact remains that the
appellant authority had already disposed of the appeal filed by the fourth
respondent herein. Thus, the appellate authority has already became
functus offico. He could not have reviewed his / her own order in the
absence of any specific provision in the statute.
4.Therefore, the appellate authority grievously erred in once again
entertaining the appeal petition from the fourth respondent. The order
dated 23.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority is patently without
jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the
learned Single Judge. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned
Singe Judge. We also set aside the order dated 23.10.2024 impugned in
the writ petition. But then, we cannot lose sight of the rights of the
senior citizen. When Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 explicitly permits the senior
citizen to file an appeal against any order of the Maintenance Tribunal,
the appellate authority needlessly constricted the scope of Section 16 in
the first instance. We, therefore, set aside the communication dated
15.05.2023 issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari. The appeal
proceedings shall stand revived. The District Collector, Kanyakumari /
appellate authority shall issue notices to both the parties and dispose of
the appeal on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible.
5.This writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
18.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias
To:
1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Sub Collector,
Padmanabapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District.
18.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
