Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Lakshmi Amma, 72 years, is the mother; Sundhari 52 years the daughter. They both live under one roof. But they both have a very strained relationship, so strained that Lakshmi Amma accused Sundhari that she had beaten her brutally, forcing her to be admitted to hospital.

2. Besides, on 11.05.2017 Lakshmi Amma also registered a crime against her daughter for the offences under Sections 323, 229, 294(b) and 506 read with S.34 I.P.C. The allegations read distressing: Sundhari allegedly deprived food to her mother, kept her outside the house even at night for about four days, and kicked her in the stomach.

3. All these allegations have led Lakshmi Amma to invoke the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”). To lay the foundation for her complaint before the primary authority under the Act, Lakshmi Amma pleaded that in the past when the familial relations were fine, she and her husband, since deceased, executed a gift deed in April 2012. They settled on Sundhari, their daughter, eight cents of land, including a residential building. The recital in the gift deed expressly reserves the right of residence till their life time to both the donors, the parents.

4. The father dead, only the mother, Lakshmi Amma, sued Sundhari before the Tribunal. She in fact prayed the Tribunal to declare the gift deed void under S.23 of the Act.

5. After entering an appearance, Sundhari, first, pleaded that two donors jointly gifted the property and that only one cannot nullify it. She has, next, contended that she spent huge amounts to renovate the house and to develop the property. In the alternative, Sundhari has also pleaded that her brother, Lakshmi Amma’s only son settled in Dubai since 1993, has never looked after their mother. It is she who has been taking care of her mother. So she urged the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

6. As seen from the Ext.P3 order, dated 5.6.2016, the Tribunal allowed Lakshmi Amma’s application; it set aside the gift deed and ordered Sundhari’s eviction from the property. Aggrieved, Sundhari filed W.P. (C) No. 20500 of 2016.

7. A learned Single Judge through judgment dated 21.12.2017 partly allowed the Writ Petition. To be specific, the judgment dated 21.12.2017 declares that cancellation of gift deed in its entirety by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Then, it has held that Lakshmi Amma could revoke the gift only to the extent of her share. At any rate, the judgment also mandates that though Sundhari has a half share in the residential property, given her violent behaviour and threat to Lakshmi Amma’s life and limb, she must live separately.

8. Aggrieved again, Sundhari is before us with this intra-court appeal.

9. Sri. Sunil Nair Palakkat, the learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously contended that the impugned judgment travels beyond the Act, especially S.23. To elaborate, the learned counsel strenuously contends that even Sundhari has no other means than what has been gifted to her. Though Lakshmi Amma has been looked after well, she quarreled with Sundhari and sought to cancel the gift deed on unjustifiable, unsustainable grounds. He denies physical violence, too.

10. Placing reliance on Janardhanan vs. The Maintenance Tribunal, the Appellate Authority, 2017 (5) KHC 1 Sri. Sunil Nair has submitted that the Tribunal has no power to cancel the gift deed unless it is conditional. He has also submitted that no provision in the Act, including S.23, empowers, as declared in Janardhanan, any Tribunal to order eviction in the maintenance proceedings.

11. In the end, Sri. Sunil Nair has submitted that Sundhari is willing to maintain Lakshmi Amma, her mother, and that even she will be rendered homeless if the impugned judgment is sustained—if the finding of eviction remains untouched. Therefore, he urges us to allow the Writ Appeal.

12. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for Lakshmi Amma, on their part, contend that it is Lakshmi Amm