The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act mandates explicit conditions in property transfer deeds for maintenance obligations to be enforceable, failing which such transfers cannot be canceled.

ORDER :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.2.2019 cancelling the settlement deed dated 06.2.1997 executed in his favour by his father in exercise of power and jurisdiction conferred under Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Act) and for a direction to the third respondent to delete the entry pertaining to the cancellation of the said settlement deed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The father of the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 06.2.1997 in his favour in respect of certain properties containing various survey numbers in Mattiyakurichi Village, Kallakurichi District and it was registered as doc.No.48 of 1997 on the file of the Joint-1 Sub-Registrar, Kallakurichi. At a later point of time, the father of the petitioner passed away and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner approached the second respondent in terms of the Act seeking cancellation of the said settlement deed on the ground that she was not being taken care by the petitioner. The second respondent, by the impugned order, allowed the application filed by the mother of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent.

(ii) It is relevant to point out that the mother of the petitioner died during November 2019.

(iii) However, by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of K.Raju Vs. Union of India & others [W.P.No.29988 of 2019 dated 19.2.2021] wherein it has been held that an appeal can be filed only at the instance of a senior citizen and that therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner has become infructuous, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.2.2019 has been put to challenge in this writ petition.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kallakurichi filed a counter for herself and on behalf of the first respondent wherein she took the following stand :

(i) The petitioner did not take care of his parents and hence, the said settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner by his father was liable to be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 23 (1) of the Act. An inquiry was conducted in this regard and an opportunity was given to the petitioner and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi supported the impugned proceedings dated 15.2.2019 and sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions :

In the said settlement deed dated 06.2.1997, the father of the petitioner settled certain properties absolutely in favour of the petitioner and that he had not reserved any right to cancel/revoke the said settlement deed in future. That apart, the said settlement deed is now sought to be cancelled based on the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner on the ground that she was not taken care by the petitioner. The second respondent ought not to have acted upon the applicatio