Madras High Court
Senthil Vadivel vs The District Collector on 25 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.25594 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 18.11.2025
Pronounced on : 25.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.25594 of 2025
and
W.M.P. Nos.28760 and 28761 of 2025
1. Senthil Vadivel
2. Tmt. Akilandeeswari ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The District Collector, Tiruppur.
2.The Sub Collector, Tiruppur.
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Tiruppur.
4.P. Mayilsamy
5.Baby Rani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the
proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.17201/2024/E1 dated 19.06.2025 of the first
respondent herein and quash the same and also to declare the settlement deed
dated 07.07.2025 in Doc.No.6323 of 2025 in the office of the 3rd respondent
herein executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent as void and
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
W.P.No.25594 of 2025
illegal, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioners : Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel,
for Mr. L. Palanimuthu
For Respondents : Mr. R. Murthi, (for R1 to R3),
Government Advocate.
: Mr. K. J. Parthasarathy, (for R4)
: Mr. S. Ramesh (for R5)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order issued by the first
respondent dated 19.06.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the fourth respondent
was allowed and the settlement deeds executed by the fourth respondent in
favour of the first petitioner were set aside.
2. The fourth respondent is the father of the first petitioner herein. The
second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner, and the fifth respondent is the
daughter of the fourth respondent herein.
3. The fourth respondent has two sons and one daughter. He acquired
the properties by way of partition among his family members, in which, he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
settled some of the properties in favour of the first petitioner by way of six
settlement deeds. The details are as follows:
i) the first settlement deed was executed on 20.11.2006 and registered as
Doc. No.10722/2006 in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1 situated at
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur, to an extent of 5240 sq.ft., out of love and
affection and to provide for his future needs.
ii) the second settlement deed was executed on 25.04.2007 registered as
Doc.No.4408/2007 in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1 situated at
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur, to an extent of 10980 sq.ft., out of love and
affection and to provide for his future needs.
iii) the third settlement deed was executed on 07.05.2007 registered as
Doc.No.4757/2007 in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1, the present
S.No.17/1A2 to an extent of 40366 sq.ft., Door No.2/1578, situated at
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur.
iv) the fourth settlement deed was executed on 17.09.2020 registered as
Doc.No.7574/2020 in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1 situated at
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur, to an extent of 45 cents, in favour of the first
petitioner. On the same day, the fifth settlement deed was executed and
registered in favour of the first petitioner as Doc.No.7568/2020 comprised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
S.No.16/1 to an extent of 5 cents and property comprised in S.No.17/1A2 to an
extent of 46 ½ cents, both situated at Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur.
v) the sixth and final settlement deed was executed in favour of the first
petitioner and registered as Doc.No.7569/2020 in respect of property comprised
in S.No.17/2B to an extent of 6 ½ cents situated at Andipalayam Village,
Tiruppur.
Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein lodged a complaint before the second
respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (hereinafter called as "the Act"). After enquiry, the
second respondent rejected the complaint by order dated 21.08.2024 and directed
the fourth respondent to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before
the first respondent, and by order dated 19.06.2025, the same was allowed,
cancelling all the settlement deeds executed in favour of the first petitioner as
well as the subsequent settlement deeds executed by the first petitioner in favour
of the second petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
5. Mr.A.R.L. Sundersan, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the fifth respondent, being daughter of the fourth
respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.693 of 2023, seeking 1/4th share in the
property and the same is pending adjudication on the file of the District Court,
Tiruppur, in respect of the properties in the hands of the fourth respondent. It is
clearly stated therein that the properties were originally purchased by the fourth
respondent's father, one Mr. Palanisamy, in the name of his wife, and therefore
the properties belong to the fifth respondent's paternal grandmother. However,
the properties were jointly enjoyed by the fourth respondent and his brother, Mr.
P. Baluswamy, who had filed a suit in O.S.No.410 of 2002, before the learned
Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, seeking for partition.
5.1 Even according to the fifth respondent, the settlement deeds were
not executed out of love and affection, but were obtained under coercion and
undue influence. Therefore, it is submitted that the fifth respondent ought to have
field a suit to challenge the settlement deeds. There are six settlement deeds, out
of which three were executed even prior to the enactment of the Act. Hence, the
complaint under Section 23 of the Act cannot be maintained insofar as those
settlement deeds executed prior to the commencement of the Act are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
5.2 The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the contents of the
counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and submitted that the settlement
deeds were not executed out of his own volition or love and affection, nor were
they supported by any consideration. However, the first respondent mechanically
allowed the complaint filed by the fourth respondent and also set aside the
subsequent settlement deeds executed by the first petitioner in favour of the
second petitioner. He submits that, pursuant to the settlement deeds executed in
favour of the first petitioner, the cancellation of the subsequent deeds is
impermissible in law.
5.3 It is further submitted that though the properties is now settled in
favour of the first petitioner, he is not claiming any rent from those properties,
and the fourth respondent can very well collect rent from the properties which
were settled in favour of the first petitioner.
5.4 He further submits that the very same order of the first respondent
was also challenged in another writ petition in W.P.No.24814 of 2025, filed by
the other brother of the fifth respondent. The said writ petition was referred to the
Mediation Centre of this Court. During the mediation, the fifth respondent, the
fourth respondent, the first petitioner and the other brother of the fifth
respondent, namely, one Mr. Prabhakaran, entered into a compromise under a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
“Settlement of Agreement” dated 19.09.2025 and the writ petition was disposed
of by an order dated 25.09.2025. Pursuant thereto, the settlement deeds, which
were executed in favour of the first petitioner's brother were cancelled
immediately, and the fourth respondent settled the said properties in favour of the
fifth respondent herein, who is being the daughter of the fourth respondent.
Therefore, the intention of the fourth respondent was only to cancel the
settlement deeds and not on the ground that the first petitioner failed to maintain
him. In fact, in the counter affidavit, he has categorically stated that the
settlement deeds were not executed out of his own volition or out of love and
affection.
6. Mr. K. J. Parthasarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent, by citing the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent
submitted that the recitals in the settlement deeds clearly show that the settlement
deeds were executed only due to love and affection, with the fond hope that the
first petitioner would maintain the fourth respondent in future. Therefore, even
though the fourth respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the settlement
deeds were not executed out of love and affection, the recitals in the registered
documents demonstrate the intention of the fourth respondent at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
execution of the settlement deeds in favour of the first petitioner. In support of
his contention, he also relied upon several Judgements of this Court. However, he
fairly conceded that out of the six settlement deeds, three were executed prior to
the enactment of the Act, and therefore cannot be cancelled under Section 23 of
the Act.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8. On perusal of the records and upon considering the submissions
made on both sides, it is seen that this issue has already been elaborately dealt
with by this Court in several cases, including decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court. Admittedly, out of the six settlement deeds, the
fourth respondent had executed three settlement deeds even before the enactment
of the Act. The Act was enacted and came into force only on 31.12.2007. In
order to maintain the complaint under Section 23 of the Act, the settlement deeds
must have been executed after the Act came into force. It is therefore necessary
to extract Section 23 of the Act, which reads as follows :-
" 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
(i) 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
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.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to
receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or
part, thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if
the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer
is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for
consideration and without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing
the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be
taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred
to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5."
9. Thus, it is clear that if settlee fails to provide the basic amenities
and physical needs to the settlor, and refuses or neglects to undertake such
responsibilities, the settlement of the subject property shall be deemed to have
been obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
10. In this case, though the fourth respondent has stated in the counter
affidavit that the settlement deeds were not executed out of his free will, volition,
or love and affection, a perusal of the settlement deeds executed in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
first petitioner clearly reveals that all the properties were settled by the fourth
respondent solely out of love and affection towards the first petitioner. Therefore,
the counter affidavit filed before this Court cannot override the recitals of the
duly executed and registered settlement deeds. All the settlement deeds were
registered before the competent registering authority.
11. Section 23 of the Act provides that when a property has been
transferred, whether by way of gift or otherwise, by a senior citizen on the
condition that the transferee or beneficiary (ownee) shall provide basic amenities
and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee or beneficiary (ownee)
subsequently fails to provide such amenities, the transfer shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence. In such circumstances, the
transferor has the option to seek a declaration that the transfer is void.
12. On a perusal of the settlement deed, it is evident that the fourth
respondent executed settlement deeds in favour of the first petitioner to make
necessary arrangements for his welfare, and in discharge of his responsibilities
towards his son, he provided future security to him. Further, although no
consideration was involved in the execution of settlement deed, the consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
for the transfer is rooted in human conduct, care and conscience. The transfer
was admittedly made out of love and affection. In the natural course of human
behaviour, the settlor would expect that the settlee would continue to conduct
himself in the same manner, as he had prior to the execution of the settlement
deed. Therefore, such expectation forms part of the implied conditions of the
transaction, governing the settlee's future conduct as well.
13. Thus, in the absence of any other circumstances, it must be
presumed that the settlor expects the continuation of care and affection from the
settlee even after the execution of the settlement deed, in the same manner, in
which the settlor was cared for prior to its execution. Further, the intention of the
Legislature, as reflected in the provisions of the Act, is to declare certain
transfers to be void, keeping in view the fact that emotionally dependent senior
citizens are often exploited by relatives who obtain properties on the pretext of
providing emotional support. Therefore, the Legislature has consciously provided
for such transactions to be declared as void, as the conduct leading to the transfer
may be tainted by malice or fraud. Accordingly, the condition referred to under
Section 23 must be understood with reference to the conduct and circumstances
surrounding the settlor, and not merely from any specific stipulation in the deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
of transfer. Hence, it is sufficient if the settlee has breached the promise or
understanding given to the settlor at the time of execution of the settlement deed.
14. Further, sub-Section 2 of Section 23 of the Act envisages a situation
where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate. Where
such a right exists, the right of maintenance can be enforced, against a transferee
if the estate, or any portion thereof, is transferred to a person who has notice of
such right, or if the transfer is gratuitous. However, such a right cannot be
enforced against a transferee, who has taken the transfer without notice of the
senior citizen's right. It is also relevant to rely upon the Judgement of this Court
in the case of Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector., order dated 08.09.2023
in W.P.No.28190 of 2022, wherein this Court, after analysing various decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as several Judgements of different
High Courts, including those relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
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 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
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 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
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 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.
15. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, it is
revealed that the first petitioner and his brother had assured the fourth respondent
that they would maintain him and his wife, and on such assurance, they
influenced him to execute the settlement deeds. Based on the assurance and also
due to love and affection over his sons, the fourth respondent executed the
settlement deeds. However, after the execution of the settlement deeds, the first
petitioner and his brother failed to maintain him. Moreover, the first petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
had further executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner in
respect of the properties that were settled in his favour. At present, the fourth
respondent and his wife are being given shelter by the fifth respondent, who is
the daughter of the fourth respondent.
16. Further, as per Section 23 of the Act, it is not contemplated that the
conditions for maintaining the senior citizen must form as part of the recitals in
the settlement deed. It only refers that there should be a condition for such
transfer, and this condition may either be expressed or implied. Therefore, the
consideration for executing a settlement deed is grounded in human conduct, care
and conscience. Hence, the transfer of the property is admittedly based on love
and affection. In the natural course of human conduct, any settlor would expect
that the settlee continues to behave in the same manner as he behaved before the
execution of settlement deed.
17. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Kamalakant
Mishra v. Additional Collector and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2077
has held that the framework of the Act clearly indicates that the legislation was
enacted to address the plight of senior citizens, and to ensure their care and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally
so as to advance its beneficent purpose. It has further been held that the Tribunal
has power to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior
citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.
Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
first respondent, except with respect to the three settlement deeds which were
executed by the fourth respondent even prior to the commencement of the Act.
18. In view of the above, the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the first
respondent is partly set aside. Insofar as the cancellation of the settlement deeds,
is concerned, the same cannot be sustained, as they were executed prior to the
commencement of the Act :
i) The first settlement deed executed on 20.11.2006, registered as
Document No.10711/2006, in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1,
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur, to an extent of 5240 sq.ft., executed out of love
and affection and to provide for the future needs of the first petitioner.
ii) The second settlement deed was executed on 25.04.2007, registered as
Document No.4408/2007, in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur, to an extent of 10980 sq.ft., executed out of love
and affection and to provide for the future needs of the first petitioner.
iii) The third settlement deed executed on 07.05.2007, registered as
Document No.4757/2007, in respect of property comprised in S.No.17/1,
(present S.No.7/1A2) to an extent of 40366 sq.ft., Door No.2/1578, situated at
Andipalayam Village, Tiruppur. However, the order passed by the first
respondent is sustained insofar as the following settlement deeds dated
17.09.2020, respectively, are concerned, Doc.No.7574/2020, 7568/2020 and
7569/2020.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
25.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
klt
To
1.The District Collector, Tiruppur.
2.The Sub Collector, Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Tiruppur.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
klt
Pre-Delivery Order in
and
W.M.P.Nos.28760 and 28761 of 2025
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:35 pm )
