The conduct of the transferee is crucial in determining the validity of property transfer under the Senior Citizen Act, and children have an obligation to maintain their parents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders made 29.12.2022 made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2224/A1/2022 passed by the first respondent confirming the order in Se.Mu.No.A3/2821/2022 dated 07.09.2022 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the Settlement Deed dated 24.06.2021 (Doc.No.5103/2021 – SRO, Neelangarai) in respect of the house property measuring 903 sq. ft. comprised in Old Patta No.814, S.F.No.63/1B15 and new patta No.746, New S.No.63/36, Sivan Koil Street, ECR, Neelangarai Village, Chennai District.)

The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai and the appellate order passed by the District Collector are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 76 years. He retired as a charge man from Tank Factory at Avadi on 30.06.2006. Wife of the writ petitioner died on 29.05.1997 and he was blessed with four sons and two daughters. The petitioner had purchased an extent of 8 cents in S.F.No.63/1B15, Sivan Koil Street, ECR, Neelankarai Village by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.06.1978 (Document No.984/1978). The petitioner states that he had spent his entire savings and earnings to purchase the subject property with a hope that it will help his family in future. The petitioner states that he belongs to Fisherman Community and his wife died in a road accident. After the death of his wife, he had struggled to manage the family and to educate his children and to perform their marriages. He had constructed a house in a phased manner and put up four small shops to augment revenue to maintain his big family consisting of eight members. The petitioner had mortgaged the property for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 04.07.2018, to meet out the family commitments such as education, marriage and other expenses. The mortgage was redeemed with the help and financial support given by his friends.

3. The third respondent is the youngest son of the petitioner, who completed his schooling in St. Bedes Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School and he was educated through National Institute of Port management to get an employment as a Captain in a ship. He has completed his studies and joined as a Captain in the ship in the year 2004. The third respondent is earning a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per month as of now. He married one Saranya and living with his wife and daughter at ECR.

4. The third respondent approached the writ petitioner to transfer the ownership of the subject property in his name, on promise that he will take care of the entire needs of the petitioner, during his last stage of life. The third respondent also assured to repay the outstanding loan. The petitioner states that he was yielded to the promise made by the third respondent in view of his old age, ill health and fiduciary relationship.

5. Based on the promise given by the third respondent, the petitioner executed a settlement deed on 24.06.2021 vide Doc.No.5103/2021. The petitioner never realised the ill motive of the third respondent. After getting the settlement deed, the third respondent gave a power of Attorney to his wife Saranya and both started neglecting the petitioner. The third respondent and his wife stopped visiting the petitioner and they have not even contacted the petitioner. The other sons and one daughter got settlement deeds much before the settlement deed executed in favour of the third respondent. In view of the fact that the third respondent breached his promise, the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Senior Citizens Act. The third respondent also appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the deposition given by the third respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer which is a