The execution of a settlement deed requires explicit or implied covenants for support; absence of such conditions under the Act invalidates claims for annulment.

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P (C) No 26616/2015 which has set aside Ext P5(as in the writ petition) order of the Statutory Maintenance Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (the ‘Act’ for short).

2.For the purpose of clarity of facts, the property in question originally belonged to late Chirutha and she executed Ext.P3 document in favour of her son- now deceased Nanu, incorporating statements and covenants therein to the effect that the latter was dependent upon her and that she was settling the property in his favour out of love and affection.

3.It transpires that late Chirutha - who was alive at the relevant time - moved Ext. R8(e) application before the Maintenance Tribunal under the ‘Act’, invoking the provisions of Section 23 thereof and seeking that Ext.P3 be set aside. Her contention appears to be that she had settled the property in favour of her son not for the reasons stated therein, but solely being promised that he would assume responsibility for her care and provide for her basic needs; albeit, to then resile from the same and contended that the property was transferred in favour of her son – late Nanu’s children, namely respondents 1 and 2, through Exts.P1 and P2 documents respectively.

4. The Maintenance Tribunal dismissed the application of late Chirutha; but on appeal by her, the Appellate Tribunal allowed it and set aside Ext.P3 document executed by her in favour of late Nanu.

5. As matters now stand, both Chirutha and Nanu are no more; and the dispute has percolated down to his children; and it has become exacerbated because of an intervening development - namely that after Chirutha obtained the order of the Appellate Tribunal, she executed a sale deed, transferring the property in favour of the 4^th appellant - Shri.

Ashokan, who now claims to be the owner of the same.

6. The children of late Nanu - namely respondents 1 and 2 - filed the writ petition before this court, challenging Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that Ext.P3, the document executed by late Chirutha in favour of their father, did not contain any covenant - either directly or indirectly – that she had transferred it in favour of the latter solely on his promise to take care of her basic needs and protect her. They argue that, consequently, the invocation of Section 23 of the ‘Act’ was improper, wrong and illegal.

7. The learned Single Judge has found in favour of the writ petitioners/ respondents 1 and 2 herein, entering a conclusion that, when both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal - in Exts.P4 and P5 orders respectively - found Ext.P3 settlement deed executed by late Chirutha, to not contain any condition that would have warranted the invocation of Section 23 of the ‘Act’, the impugned order of the latter Tribunal is in error; resultantly to set it aside.

8. We have heard Shri. Samsudin Panolan - learned counsel for the appellants; Shri. K.Saneesh Kumar - learned counel for respondents 1 and 2; and Shri. Syamanthak.B.S - learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents.

9. It is unnecessary for this court to reiterate that the sine qua non for the Statutory Maintenance Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal – as the case may be, to evaluate or confirm an action under Section 23 of the ‘Act’ is that either the deed in question contains an implied or express covenant that the beneficiary under it shall provi