The obligation of children to maintain their parents extends to their needs for a normal life, and the District Collector has the power to protect the rights and life of senior citizens under the Senior Citizen Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the second respondent leading to pass impugned order in Mu.Mu.2627/2021/Aa1 dated 22.10.2021.)

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside the settlement deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner by the third respondent who is none other than her mother.

2. The petitioner states that the third respondent, the mother of the petitioner executed registered settlement deed dated 15.06.2016 registered as Document No.4497/2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Udumalpet in respect of 2.50 acres in S.No.14/3B, Periya Valavadi Village and another dated 07.12.2016 registered as document No.9328/2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Udumalpet, in respect of 72 cents in S.No.14/3B, Periya Valavadi Village. The petitioner states that the said settlement deeds were executed out of natural love and affection. The settlement deeds had come into force and necessary changes were made in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner mortgaged the property with Kuralkuttai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank.

3. The petitioner states that the third respondent was living with her and they together filed a civil suit in O.S.No.74/2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalpet against the brother of the petitioner viz., G.Suresh for partition of the other properties left behind by the father of the writ petitioner. The suit was decreed exparte. Subsequently, the exparte decree was set aside and the suit is pending as of now. The brother of the writ petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.227/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalpet against the petitioner and the third respondent to declare that the settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are null and void. The said suit is also pending. While so, the third respondent at the instance of the brother of the writ petitioner filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to cancel the settlement deeds executed in favour of the writ petitioner by the third respondent.

4. The competent authority under the Senior Citizen Act, adjudicated the issues between the parties by affording opportunity and formed an opinion that the Senior Citizen is entitled for the relief and accordingly, cancelled the settlement deeds executed by the third respondent in favour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was not taken on file and thus, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no express condition in the settlement deed to maintain the third respondent. In the absence of any such condition, the settlement deed cannot be cancelled and the said proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court of India.

6. The petitioner states that she was maintaining the third respondent all along and the application under the Senior Citizen Act was filed, due to the threat by the brother of the writ petitioner, with an idea to get back the property already settled in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned is to be set aside. It is further contended that the third respondent is having sufficient income to maintain herself and thus, the contention raised in the application by the third respondent is false and frivolous.

7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 objected the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that the competent authority after conducting an adjudication, formed an opinion that the senior citizen is entitled for the relief, in view of the fact that the petitioner had given a false promise to the third respondent and it was withdrawn and therefore, the settlement deed was cancelled in a