JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 02.03.2020 in Ne.Mu.No.482/2020/A1 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequentially to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from invoking Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 to cancel or to declare as void the settlement deed dated 26.10.2016 registered as Document No.5749/2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner is the son of respondents 5 and 6. The parents executed settlement deed dated 26.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner settling the petition-mentioned land measuring 48 cents(document No.5642/2016). Subsequently, the parents filed a petition before the Maintenance Tribunal for cancelling the document. The Maintenance Tribunal vide proceedings dated 02.03.2020 cancelling the settlement deed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

4. The learned Special Government pleader as well as the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the parents are become very old and that they are not able to maintain themselves.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. A copy of the settlement deed dated 26.10.2016 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It does not contain any condition as envisarged under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citzens Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 (Sudesh Chhikara V. Ramti Devi and Another had held as follows:-

“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.

15. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no. 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no. 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.”

7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 relied on the order reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6079 (Mohamed Dayan V. The District Collector, Tiruppur District, W.P.No.28190 of 2022 dated 08.09.2023). After referring to the said decision, I had held vide order dated 10.11.2023 W.P(MD)No.27135 of 2023 (Sankarappan Vs. The Appellate Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of