Madras High Court
S.Jayalakshmi vs E.Tulasi @ Thulasiyammal on 20 June, 2025
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
A.S.No. 97 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
A.S.No. 97 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No. 5205 of 2023
S.Jayalakshmi
... Appellant
Vs.
1. E.Tulasi @ Thulasiyammal
2. Krishnaveni
3. Uma Maheshwari
4. Saravanan
5. Kumaran .. Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Sec. 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
16.11.2022 passed by the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in
O.S. No.5887 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivas,
Senior Advocate for
Ms.V.Mythili
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Poornima for R1 to R4
R5 – no appearance
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
A.S.No. 97 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.5887 of
2017, on the file of IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging
the findings of the trial court, had preferred this Appeal Suit.
2. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit against the
defendants 1 to 5 seeking for the relief of declaration as well as permanent
injunction in respect of suit property admeasuring an extent of 283 sq.ft. of
land along with a house in R.S.No.619/2, New R.S.No. 61/8 in Block
No.36, Vaikundapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 bearing Door
Old No. 80/6, New No. 80/11 in Mahalingapuram Road, Vaikundapuram
with four boundaries as described in the plaint schedule. The said suit was
contested by defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 4 and 5 remained
exparte. On considering both sides, the trial judge framed the issues and
finally held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as she prayed for.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the
ranking in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
4. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-
The 1st defendant herein is mother of plaintiff. The suit property as
described in the plaint schedule originally belongs to 1st defendant by way
of purchase through a sale deed dated 10.07.1989 and eversince she was in
possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff, the defendants 2 and
3 are the daughters of 1st defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are the
grandchildren of 1st defendant born through her another daughter
Poongavanam. The case of plaintiff is that out of love and affection, on
13.03.1997, her mother/1st defendant along with her husband executed a
registered Settlement deed in her favour, immediately the said deed was
acted upon and the revenue records were transferred in the name of
plaintiff. From the date of said settlement, the plaintiff is in absolute
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the year 2016, the other
defendants claiming right over the property as well as demanding share, on
verification, the plaintiff came to know that her mother unilaterally
cancelled the said settlement deed on 15.09.2010 and on the same day, she
executed another settlement deed in favour of plaintiff and the defendants
2 to 5 granting 1/4th share in the suit property. The children of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
Poongavanam, defendants 4 and 5 were also given 1/4th share. She came to
know about the execution of settlement deed on 25.09.2017, immediately
she come forward with the suit for declaration that the alleged cancellation
of settlement deed would not bind her and also sought for permanent
injunction not to cause any interference in the enjoyment of suit property.
5. The defendants 1 to 3 by filing written statements submitted their
objections and stated that the 1st defendant got married and she had five
children, out of five children, one daughter died as unmarried and other
daughters were got married and living with their children. The plaintiff
was residing along with her after the demise of her husband. Her another
daughter Poongavanam was married to one Senthamarai and begotten
defendants 4 and 5 as their children. The plaintiff, who used to visit 1st
defendant's house developed illicit intimacy with 1st defendant daughter's
husband Senthamarai and got married during the subsistence of first
marriage of his wife Poongavanam. While so, the said Poongavanam
became ill and the plaintiff was permitted to look after her. Later,
Poongavanam died leaving behind defendants 4 and 5 and her husband as
legal heirs. In the course of time, the 1st defendant was residing at the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
floor and doing her housemaid work. Under the said circumstances, the
plaintiff obtained signatures from the 1st defendant by misrepresentation.
Thereafter, the tenant stopped to pay rent to her, then only they came to
know that the plaintiff obtained a settlement deed from her on 21.03.2010,
the 1st defendant and her husband detained her, due to which she was
admitted in the hospital, thereafter, on 12.06.2010, she was driven out.
Hence, she gave a complaint and she was permitted to stay in the house
that too in the third floor. Due to old age more than 80 years, she is unable
to climb. Considering all these circumstances, she cancelled the settlement
deed on 15.09.2010 and executed a settlement deed in favour of other
daughters including plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. In fact, even after the
alleged settlement deed, the plaintiff not maintained her, besides the
settlement deed was obtained by misrepresentation. Therefore, she is
entitled to get protection under the provision of Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the
suit as no merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
6. On considering both side submissions, the trial judge has framed
three issues and the foremost issue is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the relief of declaration as well as permanent injunction”
7. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and
documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On the side of defendants, the 1 st
defendant was examined as D.W.1, the 3rd defendant was examined as
D.W.2. The documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked.
8. Considering the evidence as well as documents adduced on the
side of both parties, the trial judge dismissed the suit by considering the
subsequent circumstances developed between plaintiff, her husband and
the 1st defendant as well as taking into consideration of documents relied
on by the 1st defendant marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, which proves that the
1st defendant was assaulted by plaintiff's husband, due to which she was
admitted in the Kilpauk Medical Hospital. Even as per medical records, it
was recorded that she was assaulted by her son-in-law, thereafter a
complaint was lodged by the 1st defendant in the month of June 2010. CSR
receipt was marked as Ex.B2, which shows that enquiry was conducted,
wherein the plaintiff's husband gave undertaking that he would not quarrel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
with his mother-in-law, but thereafter he has continuously harassing.
Again, the 1st defendant gave a complaint before the Commissioner of
Police. Thus, after the alleged settlement deed, atrocities was made by
plaintiff and her husband. Therefore, the 1st defendant decided to cancel
the settlement deed. Accordingly, she cancelled the settlement deed on
15.09.2010 (Ex.A3) and executed another settlement deed in favour of
plaintiff as well as other daughters. Accordingly, the trial judge has held
that the plaintiff not maintained her mother and she was forced to climb
third floor, where she was permitted to reside. Further, by relying the
recitals of alleged settlement deed, which discloses that under the fond
hope and belief that the plaintiff would take care of 1st defendant and her
husband till their life time with due care but the same has not been
complied nor maintained the 1st defendant with due care by the plaintiff, on
the other hand, they have harassed her. Therefore, the cancellation of
settlement deed made by the 1st defendant as such is valid and justifiable
one by relying the ratio laid down in the case of N. Nagaraj Vs.
Schekar Raj, thereby the suit was dismissed. Against the said findings, the
plaintiff preferred this Appeal Suit and prayed to set aside the findings of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
trial judge by raising the following grounds :-
(1) The judgment of the court below is perverse and against
the binding precedents of this court and the Supreme Court
of India.
(2) The trial court failed to see that the 1st respondent along
with her husband had executed a registered settlement deed
in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit property
and that the same was accepted by the appellant and acted
upon by all concerned.
(3) The learned IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court failed to see
that all the revenue records, property tax and water
connection and EB service connection of the suit property
stood transferred to the name of appellant after the above
settlement deed was executed in her name.
(4) The lower court failed to note that the defence witness had
all accepted and admitted that the appellant collected all
the rents from all the tenants in the suit property after the
execution of settlement deed in her favour on 13.03.1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
(5) The trial court failed to see that the settlement deed dated
13.03.1997 was an absolute settlement deed and was not
conditional and irrevocable.
(6) The court below failed to see that there was no stipulation
in the above settlement deed and that it was conditional
that the appellant should maintain the 1st respondent.
(7) The learned judge failed to see that there was no pleading
in the written statement of the defence that the above
settlement deed was cancelled because the appellant failed
to maintain the 1st respondent.
(8) The learned judge failed to see that there was no pleading
or evidence that the 1st respondent was abandoned by the
appellant and that the latter failed to maintain the former.
(9) The court below erred in holding that the appellant did not
maintain her mother, but went one step ahead and harassed
her.
(10)The court below failed to see that the 1st respondent did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
not invoke the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 but registered a
cancellation deed unilaterally, which she was not entitled
to do and was not permissible in law.
(11) The lower court failed to see that the settlement deed
13.03.1997 (Ex.A6) executed in favour of appellant by the
1st respondent and her husband is not a conditional
settlement deed and it is irrevocable and absolute.
(12) The court below failed to see that in Ex.A3 settlement
deed, the donor 1st respondent has not reserved the right to
cancel the said settlement deed in the event of any
contingency. The deed is not executed with agreement
between the donor and the donee that the donor can cancel
the settlement deed in the event of the later not maintaining
the former.
(13) The lower court failed to see that in this case, Sec.126 of
Transfer of Property Act is not attracted.
(14) The learned Judge failed to see that in law a settlement
deed once registered cannot be cancelled by the donor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
unilaterally and such unilateral cancellation is against
public policy and void.
9. By submitting the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for
appellant argues that the 1st defendant, out of love and affection executed
the settlement deed in favour of her daughter/plaintiff in the year 1997
without any condition. Subsequently, the 1st defendant unilaterally
cancelled the said settlement deed in the year 2010 as such it would not
bind the plaintiff. In the absence of any specific condition for providing
maintenance, the 1st defendant also not entitled to avail any remedy under
Sec.23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act,
2007, besides the registering authority also not entitled to cancel the
settlement deed unilaterally. To support her contentions, she relied on the
following authorities :-
(a) reported in 2021 (15) SCC 300 in the case of Rattan Singh and
others vs. Nirmal Gil and others, wherein the Apex Court held as
follows :-
33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The
record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We
are therefore guided by the settled legal principle that a
document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as
held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal. The relevant
portion of he said decision reads as below :-
“27. There is a presumption that a registered
document is validly executed. A registered document,
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of
proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to
rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has
not been able to rebut the said presumption.”
(b) Reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 in the case of Sudesh
Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another, wherein the Apex Court held as
follows :-
Family and Personal Law – Maintenance and Financial
Provision/Alimony/Palimony – Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – S.23(1) – Transfer of
Property – Cancellation of – When permissible – Refusal to
maintain transferor – Absence of specific condition or providing
maintenance to transferor – Effect of – Held, refusal to maintain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
senior citizen not a ground for cancellation of transfer deed in
absence of specific condition for providing maintenance to the
transferor.”
(c) Reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad. 4343 : 2022 (7) Mad LJ 1
: AIR 2022 Mad 323 in the case of Sasikala vs. Revenue Divisional
Officer and another, wherein this Court in paras 58, 59 and 60 held as
follows :-
“58. From the discussions and conclusions we have reached
above with reference to various provisions of Statutes and precedents,
we reiterate the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga
Laxmi and Ors.-vs- Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported
in (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate
Line India Ltd., case, reported in AIR 2011(Mad) 66 and inclined to
follow the judgment of three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Veena Singh's case reported in (2022) 7 SCC 1 and the judgment of
two member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Ltd., case, reported in 2022 SCC On-line SC 544 for
the following propositions:
(a)A sale deed or a deed of conveyance other than testamentary
dispositions which is executed and registered cannot be unilaterally
cancelled.
(b)Such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or a deed of conveyance is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
wholly void and non est and does not operate to execute, assign, limit
or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property.
(c)Such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or deed of conveyance
cannot be accepted for registration.
(d)The transferee or any one claiming under him or her need not
approach the civil Court and a Writ Petition is maintainable to
challenge or nullify the registration.
(e)However, an absolute deed of sale or deed of conveyance which is
duly executed by the transferor may be cancelled by the Civil Court at
the instance of transferor as contemplated under Section 31 of Specific
Relief Act.
(f)As regards gift or settlement deed, a deed of revocation or
cancellation is permissible only in a case which fall under Section
126 of Transfer of Property Act, and the Registering Authority can
accept the deed of cancellation of gift for registration subject to the
conditions specified in para 42 of this judgment.
(g)The legal principles above stated by us cannot be applied to
cancellation of Wills or power of Attorney deed which are revocable
and not coupled with interest.
59.As a result of our forgoing conclusions, we answer the
reference by holding that the Registrar has no power to accept the deed
of cancellation to nullify the deed of conveyance made earlier, when
the deed of conveyance has already been acted upon by the transferee.
Since anyone may try to mislead or misinterpret our judgment by
referring to the question of reference we insist that our answer to the
reference should be understood in the light of our conclusions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
summarised in the previous paragraph.
60.The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6889 of 2020 is filed by the
daughter of the second respondent to quash the order passed by the
first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The gift deed executed by the
second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was unilaterally
cancelled by the second respondent father. The settlement deed stated
to have been executed by the second respondent, dated 06.03.2015 is
irrevocable and it is a deed of settlement out of love and affection. The
second respondent has specifically stated that he has no right to revoke
the settlement deed. From the recitals, the settlement does not attract
Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz.,
the second respondent, has not put any condition. In other words, the
gift deed is not subject to any condition or terms that the transferor
shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
second respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that
there is no scope for invoking the power provided to the second
respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, the order
impugned is liable to be quashed. Even though we agree that the writ
petition can be allowed, this Court is unable to decide the writ petition
in this batch where question referred to us is different. Hence, the writ
petition in W.P(MD)No.6889 of 2020 is de-linked and the Registry is
directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
10. By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondents/defendants
argue that the plaintiff and her husband with ill-motive by way of
misrepresentation obtained the alleged settlement deed from the 1st
defendant. Thereafter, they have started to harass her and also not
maintained the 1st defendant, who is mother of plaintiff though there is an
implied condition stating that the plaintiff ought to look after the 1st
defendant and her husband till her life time with due care. But, within a
short period of alleged settlement deed, after the demise of 1st defendant's
husband, she attempted to throw out her from the said house, for which she
gave a complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband agreed not to cause
any harassment to her, but she was given house in the third floor and failed
to look after her. Therefore, the 1st defendant inclined to cancel the
settlement deed as she was not maintained by the plaintiff. Thereafter,
though she cancelled the settlement deed, executed another settlement
deed by giving equal share to all the daughters including plaintiff and the
same was rightly appreciated by the trial judge, which needs no
interference. Further he would submit that the date of knowledge alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
by the plaintiff as such is not correct one, nearly about 17 years later, she
come forward with the suit as such is also barred by limitation and she
failed to establish her date of knowledge nor she filed suit from the date of
cancellation. Therefore, the authorities relied on by the appellant is not
applicable to the facts of present case. The decree passed by the trial judge
is well-reasoned one. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the appeal as no merit.
11. Considering both side submissions, the points for consideration
is as follows :-
(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration to declare that the cancellation of registered
settlement deed dated 15.01.2010 executed by the 1st defendant is
invalid and not binding her?
(b) Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to come forward to
cancel the settlement deed unilaterally?
12. Admittedly, the plaintiff is one of the daughter of 1st defendant.
The relationship between the parties are undisputed fact. According to
plaintiff, the suit property absolutely belong to her mother/1st defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
and out of love and affection, her mother and father executed a settlement
deed in her favour on 13.03.1997 (Ex.A3) and the said settlement deed was
duly acted upon. The possession was also handed over to her, thereby she
claimed absolute right over the suit property. Further, she contended that as
absolute owner with exclusive peaceful possession of the suit property,
with the assistance of her husband, she put up concrete superstructure and
comprising ground and first floor and she permitted her mother to live in a
portion of suit property under the permissive possession. In the year 2016,
the other defendants started to make a claim over the property. On
verification, she found that the settlement deed was unilaterally cancelled
in the year 2010. After obtaining certified copy of document, she filed the
present suit in the year 2010 immediately from the date of knowledge. But,
on perusal of records relied on by the 1st defendant, which disclosed that
during the month of March 2010, mother of plaintiff was assaulted by the
plaintiff's husband. Therefore, she was admitted in the Government
Kilpauk Medical Hospital and the said O.P. receipt was marked as Ex.B1,
wherein Doctor has recorded that the 1st defendant was assaulted by single
known person on the cheek and hand and X-ray was suggested. Doctor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
also recorded that patient was assaulted by her son-in-law. As rightly
observed by the trial judge, there is no contradictory evidence on the side
of plaintiff on the said aspect nor the plaintiff has taken steps to examine
her husband, who is son-in-law of the 1st defendant to disprove that no
such occurrence was happened. Therefore, the silence on the side of
plaintiff clearly implies that her husband attacked the 1st defendant, due to
which she was admitted in the hospital during March 2010. Ex.B2 relied
on by the 1st defendant also reveals that in the month of June 2010, the 1st
defendant gave a complaint to the police, wherein she stated that her first
daughter/plaintiff and her son-in-law Senthamarai attempted to throw out
her from the house. Therefore, she gave a complaint to that effect to the
police station and the same was also not disclosed by the plaintiff by
adducing contra evidence. Further, she would also content that
immediately after the complaint, son-in-law gave an undertaking that he
would not cause any disturbance nor quarrel with mother-in-law and the
alleged undertaking was also marked as Ex.B3. Inspite of undertaking,
son-in-law caused harassment. Therefore, the 1st defendant forced to give
another complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 02.08.2010, wherein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
she has stated that her complaint has not been properly enquired and all
these incidents took place from the month of March 2010 to August 2010.
Thereafter, in the month of September 2010, the settlement deed was
unilaterally cancelled by the 1st defendant stating that she executed the
settlement deed on the hope that her daughter would take care of her, but
due to harassment made by her, she inclined to cancel the said document.
13. By relying all the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel
for respondents 1 to 4 argues that the plaintiff failed to maintain the 1st
defendant till her life time as it was agreed while executing the settlement
deed Ex.A3. Therefore, the 1st defendant is entitled to cancel the document
under Sec.126 of Transfer of Property Act. Further, she would also content
that she is also entitled to cancel the document as per the provisions of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Per
contra,the learned counsel for appellant would submit that once the
settlement deed was executed and the same was acted upon, the 1st
defendant has no right to cancel the settlement deed unilaterally. Therefore,
it would not bind the plaintiff. But, on perusal of Ex.A2 settlement deed, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
rightly observed by the trial judge, there is a recital as follows :-
“nkYk; ePa[k; cdJ fztUk; nrh;e;J v';fs; ,UtUf;Fk; ,Jtiuapy;
bra;J te;j rtul;rizfisa[k;. v';fSf;F njitahd cjtpfisa[k;
Fiwtpdw; p bra;J tUtijg; nghy ,dp nkYk; v';fs; $Pt jpir
tiuapy; bra;J bfhLf;ft[k; v';fis ey;y Kiwapy; ghJfhj;J
tUtPh;fs; vd;w ek;gpf;ifapy; ,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuk; vGjpf;
bfhLf;fpnwhk;/”
The above recitals would clearly implies that under the fond hope and
expectation that the plaintiff would maintain her mother/1st defendant and
her father till their life time, so that the document was executed with
conditions. But, the subsequent events through Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 would
prove that the plaintiff's husband assaulted the 1st defendant and attempted
to throw out her from the house, which clearly proves that the plaintiff not
properly maintained her and harassed her, which clearly proves that the
plaintiff not properly maintained her and harassed her by joining with her
husband. Therefore, the 1st defendant decided to cancel the settlement
deed, since the implied condition was not applied by the plaintiff.
However, the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff would argues that
there is no condition was imposed in the Gift deed, therefore, the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
defendant has no right to cancel the document unilaterally. But,
considering the entire recitals of settlement deed Ex.A3, which clearly
implies that the alleged settlement deed was executed by the 1 st defendant
in favour of plaintiff with the implied condition that she would maintain
her till her life time. Therefore, it is a conditional settlement deed, when
the condition was not complied, the 1st defendant is empowered to cancel
the same under Sec.126 of Transfer of Property Act. Sec. 126 of the Act
reads as follows:-
“126. When gift may be suspended or revoked The donor and
done may agree that on the happening of any specified event
which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be
suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall
be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is
void wholly or in part, as the case may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want
or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it
might be rescinded.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to
affect the rights of transferees for consideration without
notice.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
14. Furthermore, under Sec. 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 also empowers the 1st defendant to
cancel the document and sub-proviso (1) reads as follows :-
(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition
that the transferree shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor; and
(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs to the transferor;
Since the plaintiff failed to maintain her mother aged about more than 80
years, the 1st defendant also proves that she was assaulted and harassed by
the plaintiff and her husband and failed to maintain her as per the implied
condition imposed in the settlement deed. Therefore, she is empowered to
cancel the document. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered.
15. In view of the findings given for the issue No.2, the plaintiff is
not entitled for the relief of declaration and the cancellation of settlement
deed would bind her. Further, she come forward with the suit nearly about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
17 years later from the date of such settlement deed, though she is residing
in the portion of same property. Though she pleaded that she came to know
only in the year 2016, as discussed above, in the year 2010, troubles
started in the family. Therefore, the alleged reason stated by the plaintiff
that she came to know about the cancellation of document only in the year
2016 as such is unbelievable one. So, she also failed to prove that she had
filed the suit within three years from the date of cancellation of document.
Though the ratio laid down in those case is acceptable, it is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. As discussed above, there is a recital that
the plaintiff has accepted to maintain her parents till their life time, but she
failed and harassed the 1st defendant. Therefore, she cancelled the
document and she revoked the settlement deed as such is valid under law.
Therefore, the findings given by the trial judge needs no interference.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as no merit and the findings rendered
in the suit in O.S.No. 5887 of 2017 is confirmed. Thus, suit is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rpp
To
1. IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 03:45:37 pm )
