A settlement deed executed voluntarily without a maintenance condition cannot be canceled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

ORDER :

Challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.G1/531/2022 dated 29.03.2022 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings in Moo.Mu.A1/1545/2021, dated 04.05.2022, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 20.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass an order of interim stay of the impugned orders, accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a prima facie case for grant of injunction has been made out by the petitioner. The petitioner is the granddaughter of the 5th respondent through her son, one Shanmuga Vadivel i.e, her father/6th respondent. The 5th respondent had executed a settlement deed, dated 10.03.1973, bearing document No.711 of 2017, Manapparai Sub Registry, in favour of her son one Karthikeyan on 10.03.2017. Later the aforesaid Karthikeyan had executed yet another settlement deed bearing document No.2434 of 2020, dated 10.06.2020, Manapparai Sub Registry, in favour of the 6th respondent i.e., his brother with respect to subject property of the settlement deed executed in his favour by his mother on 10.03.2017. The 6th respondent namely, Shanmuga Vadivel had executed yet another settlement deed in favour of his daughter i.e., the petitioner, by settlement deed bearing document No.3860 of 2020, at Manapparai Sub Registry on 13.08.2020.

3. In the meanwhile, the brother of the 6th respondent namely, Karthikeyan passed away. On 30.04.2021, the 5th respondent made an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent in proceedings No.Na.Ka.AA1/1545/2021, dated Nil.11.2021 signed on 30.11.2021, has elaborately dealt with the application made by the 5th respondent and has observed that the son of the 5th respondent namely, Karthikeyan, on being the transferee of the settlement deed dated 10.03.2017 executed by the 5th respondent had executed yet another settlement deed in favour of the 6th respondent on 10.06.2020. Though the said deed had been styled as settlement deed in actual terms, the same was a sale deed for which, the 6th respondent in turn had executed yet another settlement deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the property on 13.08.2020. Though the settlement deeds dated 10.06.2020 and 13.08.2020 were styled as settlement deeds in actual terms, the petitioner had given a sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the brother of the 6th respondent, who executed a settlement deed in his favour namely, Karthikeyan. Of the said sale consideration, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the aforesaid Karthikeyan to the 5th respondent, Rs.1,50,000/- each to her daughter Jeyalakshmi and Amsavalli. However, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was undertaken to be paid by the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent was not paid. The said observation was made by the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the statement given by the 6th respondent himself. In view of the same, he further deposed before the 3rd respondent that he is willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 5th respondent. Recording the same, the 3rd respondent had passed an order on 30.11.2021, directing the 6th respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance per month to the 5th respondent and also to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the account of the 5th respondent. However, unfortunately, even before the said payment could be done, the 6th respondent had passed away.

4. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent challenging the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2021, had preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent while considering the said Appeal, had confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent and also directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the settlement deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the Karthikeyan vide document bearing No.711 of 2017 on 1