Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
VANEESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the cancellation of a document. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the issue concerns the legality of order under specific provisions. (Para 3) |
| 3. court determines respondent's age-related eligibility. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 1st respondent, whereby Ext.P3 document executed by the petitioner’s father (2nd respondent) in his favour has been cancelled with reference to the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’)
2. I have heard Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The only issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether an order in the nature of Ext.P6 can be issued under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.
4. A reference to Ext.P3 document would show that when the same was executed on 03.12.2021, the 2nd respondent herein was only aged 55 years. This is also borne out of Ext.P4 – Aadhar card of the 2nd respondent, as per which he was born in the year 1966. Therefore, with reference to the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the Act,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
