W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2022 M.S.Kadalmaniraja ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Appellate Authority cum District Collector, Parents and Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Appellate Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer, Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam, Tenkasi District. ____________ Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 4.Seetharam ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.4 : Mr.S.Sethu Mahendran O R D E R

Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is the petitioner's father and out of love and affection the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed bearing Document No.2368 of 2002 dated 23.09.2002 and a sale deed bearing Document No.2370 of 2002 dated ____________ Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 21.08.2002 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, at the instigation of the petitioner's brother, namely one Chellapandian, the fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the second respondent. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent in and by proceedings dated 08.04.2022, cancelled the settlement deed and the sale deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to maintain his father. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. However, the appeal came to be dismissed by the first respondent vide the impugned order. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The settlement deed dated 23.09.2002, executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner is an absolute and irrevocable settlement and the sale deed dated 21.08.2002 being a sale, cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only when the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition is breached. In the ____________ Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the settlement deed.

4.Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein, it has been categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. 5.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deed and the sale deed were executed in the year 2002, well before the Act namely the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, came into force. Hence, the Act does not get attracted. In this regard, he relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of M.M.Ramesh Vs. M.S.Manikavasagam and another reported in 2026 (2) CTC 513. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 6.Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the ____________ Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the issue is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record. 8.Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of the fourth respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala's case, as referred to supra, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be exercised only if the transfer of property has been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition has been violated. In the absence of such a condition in the deed of transfer, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the transfer. The relevant portion with regard to unilateral cancellation is extracted hereunder; ____________ Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

“46.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 ____________ Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

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.” [Emphasis supplied] 9.With regard to the applicability of the Act, this Court in M.M.Ramesh's case has held that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “11.From the law enunciated in the decisions, referred supra, it is luculent that the Act shall be applicable only to transfer of property after the commencement of the Act and it cannot be given retrospective effect.” 10.In the case on hand, a perusal of the settlement deed dated 23.09.2002 does not disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to maintain the executant as as pre-condition for transfer of the property. Therefore, the essential requirement for involving Section 23(1) of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first and second respondents could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act. 11.In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022 is liable to be set aside. ____________ Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 29.08.2022 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR ____________ Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 To 1.The Appellate Authority cum District Collector, Parents and Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Appellate Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer, Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam, Tenkasi District. ____________ Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J. MR W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 13.07.2026 ____________ Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2022 M.S.Kadalmaniraja ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Appellate Authority cum District Collector, Parents and Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Appellate Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer, Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam, Tenkasi District. ____________ Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 4.Seetharam ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.4 : Mr.S.Sethu Mahendran O R D E R

Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is the petitioner's father and out of love and affection the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed bearing Document No.2368 of 2002 dated 23.09.2002 and a sale deed bearing Document No.2370 of 2002 dated ____________ Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 21.08.2002 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, at the instigation of the petitioner's brother, namely one Chellapandian, the fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the second respondent. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent in and by proceedings dated 08.04.2022, cancelled the settlement deed and the sale deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to maintain his father. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. However, the appeal came to be dismissed by the first respondent vide the impugned order. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The settlement deed dated 23.09.2002, executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner is an absolute and irrevocable settlement and the sale deed dated 21.08.2002 being a sale, cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only when the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition is breached. In the ____________ Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the settlement deed.

4.Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein, it has been categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. 5.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deed and the sale deed were executed in the year 2002, well before the Act namely the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, came into force. Hence, the Act does not get attracted. In this regard, he relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of M.M.Ramesh Vs. M.S.Manikavasagam and another reported in 2026 (2) CTC 513. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 6.Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the ____________ Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the issue is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record. 8.Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of the fourth respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala's case, as referred to supra, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be exercised only if the transfer of property has been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition has been violated. In the absence of such a condition in the deed of transfer, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the transfer. The relevant portion with regard to unilateral cancellation is extracted hereunder; ____________ Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

“46.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 ____________ Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

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.” [Emphasis supplied] 9.With regard to the applicability of the Act, this Court in M.M.Ramesh's case has held that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “11.From the law enunciated in the decisions, referred supra, it is luculent that the Act shall be applicable only to transfer of property after the commencement of the Act and it cannot be given retrospective effect.” 10.In the case on hand, a perusal of the settlement deed dated 23.09.2002 does not disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to maintain the executant as as pre-condition for transfer of the property. Therefore, the essential requirement for involving Section 23(1) of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first and second respondents could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act. 11.In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in e.f.Xs1/5570/2022 dated 29.08.2022 is liable to be set aside. ____________ Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022

12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 29.08.2022 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR ____________ Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 To 1.The Appellate Authority cum District Collector, Parents and Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Appellate Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Officer, Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam, Tenkasi District. ____________ Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J. MR W.P.(MD)No.22303 of 2022 13.07.2026 ____________ Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis