Madras High Court
V.Mariyappan vs The District Collector on 3 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
WP No. 18604 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP No. 18604 of 2025
and
WMP Nos.20857 and 20858 of 2025
V.Mariyappan
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
Krishnagiri District,Krishnagiri
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office, Krishnagiri
3.V.Bodiyammal
4.Vasantha,
5.V.Govindaraj,
6.Krishnan
7.Madhu
8.S.Amala Rani,
Respondent(s)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
WP No. 18604 of 2025
PRAYER
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his
proceedings in Mu.Mu.1499/2021/F dated 22.02.2022 which unlawfully
cancelled an unconditional settlement deed executed in petitioner favor on
16.02.2019 (Document No.1903/2019) by the 3rd respondent herein and to
quash the same and pass
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Prakasam
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 and R2
Mr.Yaman Oberoi
for R3, R4, R6 and R7
Mr.P.Kannan
for R5
Mr.L.Ramu
for R8
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second
respondent dated 22.02.2022 on the file of the second respondent thereby
cancelling the settlement deed dated 16.02.2019 executed in favour of the
petitioner by the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
2. The petitioner is son of the third respondent. The respondents 4 to 7 are
brothers and sisters of the petitioner. While that being so, the property
comprised in Survey No.3/2C measuring an extent of 2.85 acres and the
property comprised in Survey No.4/1C was settled in favour of the petitioner by
the third respondent by way of settlement deed dated 16.02.2019 vide document
No.1903 of 2019. Thereafter, the third respondent lodged a complaint under
Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 before the second respondent alleging that the settlement deed was
obtained by the petitioner by fraud and even after the execution of the
settlement deed, the petitioner failed to maintain the third respondent. It was
taken on file by the second respondent and detailed enquiry was conducted by
issuing notice to the petitioner and other legal heirs. Thereafter, the second
respondent passed a detailed order on 22.02.2022 thereby cancelling the
settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed
to handover the physical possession and all the parent documents in respect of
the said property to the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has preferred this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
3. In the meantime, the subject property after cancellation of settlement
deed executed in favour of the petitioner, was sold to the 8th respondent herein.
The 8th respondent herein is now in enjoyment and possession of the subject
property. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioner has already filed a suit in
OS No.133 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthagarai for a declaration
declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the eight respondent as null and
void. While pending suit, the eighth respondent has filed a petition for
rejection of plaint on the ground that already the settlement deed executed in
favour of the petitioner was cancelled by second respondent herein in respect of
the subject property. Thereafter, the third respondent had executed the sale deed
in favour of the eighth respondent herein. Therefore, without challenging the
order passed by the second respondent herein, the suit filed by the petitioner is
not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging
the order passed by the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as
per the settlement deed, there is no condition to maintain the third respondent.
Therefore, the complaint under Section 23 (1) of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 itself is not maintainable. In support of
his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another rendered in
Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021 dated 06.12.2022.
5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all
the materials placed before this Court.
6. This Court has already dealt with the present issue in several writ
petitions including the case of Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector., 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 different High Courts of India, held in favour of the senior citizen
who executed the settlement deed. The relevant portion is extracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
hereunder: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 “Normal Life” emboldened under Section 4(2)
of the Senior Citizen Act. Therefore, simply providing food and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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 to the transferor and such transferee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
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 case is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
7.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.
8. In view of the above, the second respondent rightly exercised its
jurisdiction and cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the
petitioner. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03-11-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
mrn
To
1.The District Collector
Krishnagiri District,Krishnagiri
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office, Krishnagiri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
mrn
03-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:48:02 pm )
