JUDGMENT :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Under assail is the Writ order dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.32 of 2024.
2. The appellant, who is the senior citizen and mother of the 3rd respondent, filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Senior Citizens Tribunal, Dharmapuri, stating that she had executed a settlement deed in favour of her son/3rd respondent due to love and affection and for the better future of the 3rd respondent. The senior citizen in her complaint has stated that at the time of executing the settlement, the 3rd respondent promised that he will take care of the appellant/senior citizen and his brothers and sisters. Trusting the 3rd respondent, the senior citizen executed the settlement deed. After execution of the settlement deed, the senior citizen was driven out from her house, and presently she is residing in her second daughter's house. She is suffering to lead her livelihood and meet her medical expenditure. The 3rd respondent being the eldest son, the senior citizen trusted him to take care of her till her lifetime.
3. The 3rd respondent in his reply has stated that the property was purchased by his father in the name of his mother/appellant. He also claimed that he had earned money at a young age and contributed to the purchase of the property. The appellant has now filed a complaint allegedly at the instance of her daughters and has lodged a police complaint in the Krishnapuram Police Station, stating that the 3rd respondent had threatened and physically tortured her. However, the said statement is incorrect. The 3rd respondent has further stated that he is ready and willing to maintain the appellant in the event of joining with his family.
4. The Tribunal directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The Tahsildar recorded the statements of the complainant and the opposite party, verified the documents, and submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed a final order in Proceeding No. Ni.Mu.461/2023/A1, dated 12.05.2023, rejecting the complaint. The complaint was mainly rejected on the grounds that the appellant, during the relevant time, was aged about 57 years and not a senior citizen. Secondly, there was no specific condition in the settlement deed that the 3rd respondent should maintain the senior citizen. On these grounds, the complaint was rejected.
5. The senior citizen preferred an appeal before the District Collector, who in-turn passed an order in Proceeding Se.Mu.Na.No.997/A1/2022, dated 12.09.2023, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thus, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition.
6. The Writ Court also arrived a conclusion that a specific condition in compliance with Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act is required for the purpose of annulling the settlement deed. In the absence of any specific condition in the settlement deed, the senior citizen is not entitled for any relief. The Writ Court also relied on the same grounds in the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector. However, the Writ Court stated that the senior citizen can seek remedy under the Common Law including Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The 3rd respondent voluntarily stated that he will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the senior citizen for maintenance.
7. Challenging the Writ order, the present Writ Appeal has been instituted.
8. In the present case, the complaint filed by the senior citizen reveals that she was physically and mentally harassed by the 3rd respondent. She was driven out from her house. She has executed settlement deed out of love and affection and for the better future of the 3rd respondent. The terms 'love and affection' and 'the better future of the 3rd respondent' have been expressly stated in the settlement deed by the senior citizen. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether a specific condition in the settlement deed stating that the son will maintain his mother is
Click Here to Read the rest of this document