The court ruled on enforcement of undertakings made under the Settlement Deed and the validity of subsequent orders in maintenance proceedings.

JUDGMENT

These writ petitions have been filed by a senior citizen aged 76 years, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”). WP(C) No. 32239 of 2022 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records leading to Exhibit P5 and may quash the same in so far as it directs respondents 3 to 6 to execute a deed in favour of petitioner by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(a)(1) appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 3 to 5 to re-convey the subject matter property to the petitioner and comply with the undertaking by these respondents before the tribunal.

(b) Pass an order setting aside Exhibit P2 settlement deed (c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to declare Ext P2 deed as void and shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion and undue influence.”

WP(C) No. 23496 of 2024 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Declare that Ext. P2 settlement deed is vitiated by fraud and coercion and is void ab initio.

(b)Issue appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside Exhibit P2 settlement deed.”

2. Since the issue arises out of the very same cause of action and the parties are identical, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Exts.P1 to P5 in both writ petitions are common. In addition thereto, two additional documents have been marked as Exts.P6 and P7 in WP(C) No.23496 of 2024.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she had settled the properties in favour of the party respondents as per Settlement Deed No.1026 of 2018 dated 04.06.2018 of Thengana SRO, reserving her life interest, on the belief that the party respondents will look after and take care of her during her lifetime, owing to their lavish lifestyle, they disposed of other properties given to them by the petitioner’s late husband. It is alleged that even after execution of the above Settlement Deed, the party respondents did not look after the petitioner and they failed to provide food, medicines and basic amenities to the petitioner and that she was mentally and physically tortured by them. Thus, she approached the Maintenance Tribunal with Ext.P3 application for maintenance under Section 5 of the Act. Thereafter, on the basis of Ext.P4 Memorandum of Settlement filed by the Conciliation Officer before the Maintenance Tribunal, Ext.P5 order dated 12.07.2022 was passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P5 order was passed in terms of Ext.P4 Memorandum of Settlement, the second respondent-Maintenance Tribunal directed the party respondents to reconvey the property to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.32239 of 2022; and this Court, by judgment dated 13.12.2023, had disposed of the writ petition, setting aside Ext.P5 order with a consequential direction to the Maintenance Tribunal to ensure that the undertakings made by the party respondents are properly implemented. The petitioner was also granted liberty to move the Maintenance Tribunal appropriately. Thereafter, the third respondent filed RP No.208 of 2024, seeking review of the judgment dated 13.12.2023 in WP(C) No.32239 of 2022, which was allowed, restoring the writ petition to file.

4. In the meanwhile, the subsequent writ petition, WP(C) No.23496 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 13.05.2024, which was passed pursuant to the judgment dated 13.12.2023 in WP(C) No.32239 of 2022. The case of the petitioner is that since Ext.P7 order was passed pursuant to the judgment dated 13.12.2023 in WP(C) No.32239 of 2022, which was recalled by this C