Madras High Court
S. Meenakshi vs Jayalakshmi on 17 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3442 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 3442 of 2025
And
CMP.No. 28137 of 2025
S. Meenakshi ..Appellant
Vs
1. Jayalakshmi
2.The District Collector,
No.62, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Beach Road, George Town,
Chennai-600001.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Range,
Guindy, Chennai-600032. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P.No. 9317 of 2023.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
W.A No. 3442 of 2025
For Appellant: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents : M/s. N. Kavitha Rameshwar - R1
Mrs. M. Jayanthy, AGP – R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 13.12.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9317 of 2023. The challenge
relates to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the
settlement deed does not convey any right to the appellant herein and that the
title continues to vest with the respondent/writ petitioner; and since the
settlement deed does not convey either title or any right to the appellant, it is
immaterial whether the document is cancelled or not.
2. The first respondent, who is an octogenarian, executed a registered
settlement deed dated 06.10.2015 in favour of the appellant herein. The first
respondent/writ petitioner contended that, after execution of the settlement
deed, the appellant refused to take care of her, forced her out of the house
property, and consequently, she filed a complaint before the third respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007. The complaint came to be rejected, whereupon the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The said appeal
was also dismissed, which necessitated the respondent/writ petitioner to
approach this Court by filing the aforementioned writ petition. The learned
Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by making the findings noted above,
which are impugned herein. Taking exception to these findings, the present writ
appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
that the learned Single Judge, while exercising writ jurisdiction, exceeded the
scope of such jurisdiction by interpreting the settlement deed and recording
findings on the appellant’s rights. According to him, these findings are beyond
the scope of writ jurisdiction and are therefore unsustainable. He further
contended that the settlement deed unequivocally conveyed the right and title
over the subject property to the appellant, while the respondent/writ petitioner
retained only a right of residence and enjoyment during her lifetime. Hence, the
impugned observations/findings of the learned Single Judge, being contrary to
the settlement deed, are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
4. In response, Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the settlement deed does not convey
any right in favour of the appellant and that title to the property would pass to
the appellant only upon the death of the settlor. The learned Single Judge, after
considering the terms of the settlement deed, correctly recorded the impugned
findings and rightly held that the question of cancellation of the settlement deed
did not arise.
5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and
the documents placed on record have been duly considered.
6. The settlement deed in vernacular language filed along with the writ
petition, as seen from the typed set of papers and translated orally , makes it
clear that title would pass in favour of the appellant only upon the death of the
settlor, namely the respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the appellant’s
contention that the settlor had merely reserved a life interest and that title had
already vested in the appellant cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in N.P. Saseendran vs. N.P. Ponnamma & Others (Civil
Appeal No. 4312 of 2025, dated 24.03.2025), wherein it was held that delivery
of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement and that it is
sufficient if the document is proved to have been acted upon during the lifetime
of the executant. We have no quarrel with the said principle. However, the said
legal principle is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, since the
settlement deed in question does not convey title to the appellant and expressly
provides that title and possession of the property would pass only upon the
demise of the settlor.
8. The appellant had also instituted O.S. No. 291 of 2019 on the file of
the District Munsif, Alandur, seeking a mandatory injunction directing the
respondent/writ petitioner to surrender the original settlement deed, restraining
her and other defendants from misusing the document and from cancelling the
same.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner placed on record
the judgment dated 30.10.2025, by which the suit filed by the appellant was
dismissed. In view of such dismissal, and considering that the learned Single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
Judge merely interpreted the settlement deed while recording the impugned
findings, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. The learned
Single Judge has not adjudicated upon the substantive rights of the parties but
has merely interpreted the clauses of the settlement deed, which unequivocally
state that title would pass to the appellant only upon the demise of the settlor.
Such an exercise cannot be said to be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction,
particularly in proceedings arising under Section 23 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which specifically provides
for cancellation of documents as contemplated therein.
10. In light of the foregoing, we find no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
17.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
To
1.The District Collector,
No.62, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Beach Road, George Town,
Chennai-600001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Range,
Guindy, Chennai-600032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
