JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner proceeds with the representation of the fourth respondent or any other person claiming under her that to cancel the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner dated 22.01.1990 registered as Document No. 83 of 1990 on the file of the third respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner entertaining the representation of the fourth respondent or any other person claiming under her to cancel the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in her favour on 22.01.1990, which was registered as Document No. 83 of 1990 on the file of the third respondent, by invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

2. According to the petitioner, her parents were blessed with two sons and three daughters, including her. The petitioner was given in marriage and thereafter, the fourth respondent, who is her mother, had executed a settlement deed dated 22.01.1990 by which the land in Survey No. 62/3 measuring an extent of 1.40 acres out of 3.40 acres in Elambur Village Panchayat, Perambalur District was settled in her favour. It is stated that the petitioner has mutated the revenue records and obtained patta bearing No. 2493 in her favour. It is also stated that the petitioner is financially supporting the fourth respondent. In fact, when the petitioner was facing financial crunch, she had sold a portion of the land measuring 432 square meters out of 1.40 acres in favour of one Mr. Thangavel by executing a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2010 and it was also known to the fourth respondent and her brothers and sisters. While so, the petitioner came to know that at the instance of her brothers and sisters, the fourth respondent is attempting to cancel the settlement deed dated 22.01.1990. It is also stated that the fourth respondent along with her brothers and sisters attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the property settled in her favour and therefore, she has filed a suit in O.S. No. 146 of 2021 before the learned District Munsif, Perambalur for bare injunction and it is pending. Thus, apprehending that the fourth respondent may cancel the settlement deed dated 22.01.1990 executed in her favour by invoking the provisions contained under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief stated supra.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the recitals in the settlement deed dated 22.1.1990 clearly establish that it was executed by the fourth respondent out of love and affection to enable the petitioner to maintain herself. However, the attempt on the part of the fourth respondent to cancel the said document after three decades is unjust and unreasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court, in the case of Subhashini vs. The District Collector and Others in W.A. No. 1460 of 2015, dated 22.9.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 is not applicable in the absence of specific recital as to the maintenance of the executant by the setlee. It is stated that in the settlement deed dated 22.01.1990, there is no recital to the effect that the petitioner has to maintain the fourth respondent. Even otherwise, the petitioner is continuously supporting the fourth respondent financially, as such, the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act will not be applicable to the facts and circumstan