Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act allows cancellation of property transfers made without express maintenance conditions where an implied obligation of care based on love and affection is breached through neglect or coercion.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the order dated 09.09.2024 in W.P.No.32738 of 2022.

2. The matter arises under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (herein after referred as Senior Citizens Act).

3. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The appellant is the son of the third respondent. The third respondent / Senior Citizen instituted a complaint before the competent authority under the Senior Citizens Act seeking cancellation of the Settlement deed executed by her, in favour of her son/appellant on the ground that she was neglected by her son, after getting the Settlement deed executed by force and coercion.

4. The competent authority/Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of complaint from the third respondent/senior citizen issued notice to the appellant and conducted an enquiry as contemplated under the Act.

5. The written statement of the senior citizen and the appellant/son were recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The third respondent raised serious allegations against the appellant/son that she was subjected to harassment both mentally and physically. The physical harassment caused to the senior citizen are narrated in her complaint which all are recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the final order dated 25.05.2022. Opportunity was given to the parties. Considering the statement of the senior citizen and the appellant and by conducting an enquiry, the competent authority formed a final opinion that the senior citizen was neglected by her own son and Settlement deed was executed by coercion and fraud. Thus, the Settlement deed was cancelled by the competent authority. The District Collector confirmed the order. An appeal was filed by the appellant. Though the appeal filed by the son or daughter of the senior citizen is not maintainable under the Act, the District Collector has gone in to the merits and made findings that the facts and circumstances recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer has been established. The findings of the District Collector also in conformity with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thus, the appellant preferred writ petition.

6. The writ Court independently considered the merits elaborately with reference to the allegations raised between the parties. The writ Court tested the validity of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the context of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. It is found that the settlement deed executed is squarely falling under Sub Section (1) to Section 23 and by adopting a holistic approach the writ Court held that the settlement deed was deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence, which is the implied condition contemplated under Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizen Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the facts or otherwise and the allegations of harassment both physically and mentally had not been established before the competent authority. The allegations raised by the senior citizen before the authority occurred prior to execution of settlement deed and the same cannot be relied upon. The appellant always expressed his willingness to maintain the third respondent mother and it is, she, who accompanied her brother and in order to cancel the settlement deed such complaint has been filed based on wrong facts. The brother of the senior citizen is the brain behind this complaint and therefore the present writ appeal is to be considered.