SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
K. Raju - Appellants
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 10816, 10823, 10829 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos. 11443, 11454 and 11461 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Veena Suresh
For the Respondents: C. Sangamitirai, Special Government Pleader, R. Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader and A. Sathish Kumar

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 - Section 16, 16 (1) - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of first respondent pertaining to order - There is no provision under Act for setting aside order directing cancellation of settlement deeds, Law cannot render a person remediless and made to suffer and, therefore, for reasons aforesaid, this Court, invoking inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction available to it under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is inclined to accede to relief sought for by petitioner. (Para 12).

Findings of the Court – Petition has been filed by petitioner to set aside impugned order passed by first respondent cancelling settlement deed - It is evident from records that provision for appeal is not provided for any person, other than senior citizen against any order passed by adjudicating authority/Tribunal - However, in case on hand, after inviting an unfavourable order, which cannot be appealed, petitioner and fifth respondent have reconciled and settled issue amicably amongst themselves and in that regard, fifth respondent has also received one time settlement, as is evident from Joint Compromise Memo entered into between petitioner and fifth respondent. Such being case, petitioner cannot be made to suffer with order passed by first respondent directing cancellation of settlement deed, when in fact petitioner and fifth respondent have amicably settled disputes among themselves.

Result – Writ petitions allowed.

ORDER :

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to order in Na.Ka.A3/1938/2018 dated 11.07.2019, 11.07.2019 and 21.02.2019 respectively, cancelling the Settlement Deeds dated 15.02.2007, 10.04.2014 and 26.08.2014 respectively, Doc. Nos. 979/2007, 1269/2014 and 1705/2014 (SRO, Vanur), (SRO, Vanur) and (SRO, Tindivanam) respectively, to quash the same and to consequently direct the third respondent, third respondent and second respondent respectively, to restore the cancelled Settlement Deeds in Doc. Nos. 979/2007, 1269/2014 and 1705/2014 (SRO, Vanur), (SRO, Vanur) and (SRO, Tindivanam) respectively, on the file of the third respondent, third respondent and second respondent respectively.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the son of the fifth respondent and due to some family misunderstandings, the fifth respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007) claiming to cancel the Settlement Deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent without proper enquiry passed the orders in Na.Ka.A3/1938/2018 dated 11.07.2019, 11.07.2019 and 21.02.2019 respectively, cancelling the Settlement Deeds dated 15.02.2007, 10.04.2014 and 26.08.2014 respectively, Doc. Nos. 979/2007, 1269/2014 and 1705/2014 on the file of the third respondent, third respondent and second respondent respectively. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Collector, Villupuram under Section 16 (1) of the Act and the Appellate Authority, did not take the appeal on file on the ground that the appeal will lie only at the instance of the senior citizen or the parent.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29988 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that any aggrieved party to an order passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007), can file appeal under Section 16 (1) of the said Act and to issue direction to the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on file. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021, dismissed the said writ petition.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that the dispute in between the petitioner and the fifth respondent was settled out of Court and the fifth respondent has received the lifetime Settlement amount and has agreed that no further maintenance claim will be laid in future. However, after the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 29988 of 2019, the petitioner cannot approach the Appellate Authority. Hence, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the dispute and indifferences between the parties are resolved and the fifth respondent received a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs from the petitioner towards maintenance amount for him and his wife and has no objection to set aside the cancellation of the Settlement Deeds. To that effect, the learned counsel also filed a Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and fifth respondent dated 23.12.2021, signed by the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the order of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.A3/1938/2018 dated 11.07.2019, 11.07.2019 and 21.02.2019 respectively, cancelling the Settlement Deeds dated 15.02.2007, 10.04.2014 and 26.08.2014 respectively, Doc. Nos. 979/2007, 1269/2014 and 1705/2014 respectively and to direct the third respondent, third respondent and second resp

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top