The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and the applicability of the Indian Contract Act and the Transfer of Property Act to the case.

JUDGMENT

S. Vaidyanathan, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JJ.

COMMON PRAYER IN BOTH WAs: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 22.11.2019 made in W.P.Nos.10849 & 26810 of 2017 passed by this Court by allowing these writ appeals.

Background

These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 22.11.2019 in W.P.Nos.10849 and 26810 of 2017. The appellant was the petitioner in the said writ petitions. In W.P.No.10849 of 2017, the petitioner assailed the cancellation deed dated 14.12.2012 bearing document No.8693 of 2012 executed by the third respondent (the Cancellation Deed) to cancel the settlement deed dated 25.08.2009 bearing document No.5815 of 2009 (the Settlement Deed) in respect of the property admeasuring 4950 sq.ft. in T.S.No.8, Ward No.9, Block No.14 at Kanagapalayam Village in S.No.138/1A, Sub Division 138/1A1A at No.27, Sardar Street Extension, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District (the Property), and prayed that the sale agreement dated 12.12.2016 bearing document No.9430 of 2016 (the Sale Agreement) be quashed. The second limb of the prayer was, however, rendered infructuous by the cancellation of the Sale Agreement on 10.05.2017. In W.P.No.26810 of 2017, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer (the RDO) culminating in order dated 27.09.2017 in Na.Ka.No.2194/2017/A3 endorsing the cancellation. The Writ Court dismissed both the writ petitions with costs of Rs.15,000/-.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of the third respondent, Mr.V.Durairaj. The third respondent purchased the Property under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1986 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Udumalpet. Thereafter, he settled the said property in favour of his daughter / petitioner/ appellant herein under the Settlement Deed. Later, the appellant came to know that her father unilaterally cancelled the Settlement Deed by the Cancellation Deed. The appellant also came to know that the third respondent executed the Sale Agreement in favour of one Paramasivam. W.P.No.10849 of 2017 was filed, in those facts and circumstances, to assail the above documents.

3. Shortly after W.P.No.10849 of 2017 was filed, in July 2017, the third respondent filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Senior Citizens Act) before the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, i.e. the first respondent/RDO, Udumalpet. In the said petition, the third respondent alleged that the appellant did not maintain her parents and, therefore, requested the first respondent/RDO to declare that the Settlement Deed executed in favour of the appellant is void. By order dated 27.09.2017, the first respondent held that the Settlement Deed is invalid. W.P.No.26810 of 2017 was filed challenging the said order. While dismissing the writ petitions, the Writ Court noticed Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and accepted the contention of the third respondent that the petitioner/appellant had not taken care of her parents. On the basis of the said conclusion, the Writ Court held that the cancellation of the Settlement Deed was valid and that the petitioner had not made out a case to interfere with such cancellation or with the order of the first respondent in respect thereof.

Counsel and their contentions

4. Oral submissions on behalf of the appellant were advanced by Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.D.R. Arunkumar, learned counsel; on behalf of the third respondent by Mr.N.Umapathy; and Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader, appeared on behalf of the official respondents.

5. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel, invited our attention to the Settlement Deed and submitted that it was executed on 25.08.2009. By drawing reference to the PAN card of the third respondent, she pointed out that he was born on 19.12.1950 and, therefore, he was only 58 years old when the Settleme