The central legal point established is the interpretation of section 23(1) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement for the transferor to impose conditions on the transferee for the section to apply.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2020 under its Reference No.Na.Ka.A3.106/2020 and quash the Impugned Order of the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2020 under its Reference No.Na.Ka.A3.106/2020.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the first respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) under which the settlement deed dated 27.05.2019 executed by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent was ordered to be cancelled.

2. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the execution of the aforementioned settlement deed dated 27.05.2019, the third respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the sixth respondent on 27.06.2019 and thereafter, the sixth respondent sold the property to the petitioner under a sale deed dated 02.12.2019. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that section 23(1) of the Act can be invoked, only when the settlement deed imposes condition for maintenance of senior citizen. In the case on hand, the second respondent is a senior citizen. Since the settlement deed dated 27.05.2019 does not impose any such condition, section 23(1) of the Act does not get attracted. According to her, since section 23(1) of the Act is not attracted, the impugned order has to be quashed.

3. Heard Mr.N.Sivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent 2 and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 7. Despite service of notice on the respondents 3 to 6, there is no representation on their side.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 7 would submit that the Act is meant to protect the interest of the senior citizens. He would also submit that the conduct of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition creates suspicion as to whether he is a bonafide purchaser or not. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 7 drew the attention of this court to the sale deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the sixth respondent subsequent to the execution of the settlement deed dated 27.05.2019 and would submit that within a short period of time, the said sale deed has been executed which creates suspicion. According to him, the first respondent has rightly ordered the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 27.03.2019 executed by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent. According to him, though the Full Bench of Kerala High Court has held that section 23 of the Act has to be applied by following its literal meaning, there are other decisions rendered by other High Courts which have interpreted section 23 of the Act in favour of the senior citizens. Though the said decisions have been referred to by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the same has not been placed before this Court during the course of his argument.

5. Mr.G.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order as he is a third party to the impugned proceedings. He would also reiterate the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the sale deeds executed in favour of the respective parties subsequent to the settlement deed dated 27.05.2019 are fraudulent sale deeds. He would also point out that the sale deeds disclose that it is a vacant land whereas the the subject property comprises of land and building.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to section 23 of the Act