JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are the children of the first respondent Amina Ummer.

She has three sons and five daughters born in her matrimonial relationship with one Ummer. She is aged 87 years and is a widow. She had obtained property comprised in C schedule in document No.210/1985 of Karikode SRO in old survey No.902/2 -6 having an extent of 32.37 ares and 49.37 ares in Sy.No.902/2-4. While so, first respondent granted permission to one Haridas by a licence deed No.1549/2018 dated 22/5/2018, to extract granite for a period of 15 years. While so, an extent of 81 ares and 74 sq.meters of land was settled by her in favour of her three sons including the petitioners herein. Right of life interest was retained in the above document.

2. By Ext.R1(a)complaint submitted before the RDO, Muvattupuzha, the first respondent alleged that her two sons who are the petitioners herein had got the above settlement deed executed by threat, coercion and on an undertaking that they would maintain her. However, they refused to maintain her and had been harassing her physically and mentally. It was stated that, they interfered in the performance of the lease with Haridas by virtue of document No. 1549/2018, so that the terms of the agreement could not be performed. It was contended by her that, since the documents were got executed by threat and coercion and that the petitioners herein failed to maintain her, the above document may be declared as null and void by invoking section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act.)

3. The Tribunal, before whom the matter was placed, who is the third respondent herein, after giving notice to both sides and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by Ext.P4 order held that the document No.2836/2018 was got executed by the writ petitioners with threat and coercion and that after getting the property assigned in their favour, violated the terms of the agreement and thereby violated section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. Accordingly, the document was declared as null and void invoking section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. This order is under challenge in the proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel for respondents No.1.

5. Essential facts are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that in a portion of land one Haridas was given the permission to conduct quarry, The disputed settlement deed is produced as Ext.P1. The above settlement deed is dated 5/11/2018, admittedly executed after the Senior Citizens Act was brought into force. There is a specific reference in the document that the above property was obtained by her by virtue of document No.210/1985 referred to as C schedule and out of it, the scheduled property in the settlement deed was settled in favour of sons having regard to love and affection towards them and that also for their maintenance. There was a specific recital that she will be entitled to take usufructs from the property during her life time and thus evidently a life interest is created in favour of her. There is also no dispute that by Ext.P2 document dated 22/5/2018 executed by Amina, right to extract granite was given to one Haridas, in a portion of the land having an extent of 59.78 ares. There is a specific recital that the rent would be paid to Amina. It is also stated therein that on completion of the period of lease, possession would be handedover to Amina.

6. Records produced by both sides and the stand taken by the writ petitioners clearly show that the relationship between the parties is strained. It is also clear that regarding the running of quarry, there were several disputes and complaints were laid by both sides. There is also nothing to show that petitioners have maintained the mother.

7. On the basis of the inputs placed before the Maintenance Tribunal, it was found that after the execution of the Deed, the writ petitioners herei