ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the petitioner is not a senior citizen.

2. Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4, 5, 7 & 8. The sixth respondent is given up.

3. The second respondent had earlier passed an order dated

25.08.2021 ordering for cancelling the settlement deed executed by the fourth and fifth respondents in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent which was rejected on the ground that he is not a senior citizen. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Since the petitioner is not a senior citizen, the first respondent has rightly rejected the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. As per section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is clear that only when there is a condition that the transferee (settlee herein) shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee (settlee) refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall be declared to be void by the Tribunal. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 reads as follows:

“ Sec.23: Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances: (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.”

6. In the instant case, the fourth respondent has not imposed any condition in the Settlement Deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner, who is his son that he will have to provide basic amenities and physical needs to him. When no such condition has been imposed and when the fourth respondent has failed to establish fraud or coercion or undue influence against the petitioner, the Settlement Deed executed in favour of the petitioner cannot be declared to be void.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay maintenance to the fourth and fifth respondents who are his father and mother. The said statement is recorded.

8. After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors and after recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the second respondent and directs the petitioner to pay totally a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the fourth and fifth respondents on or before 5th of every English calender month, without committing any default and only for the month of August, 2022 the maintenance amount shall be paid on or before 18.08.2022. In case any default is committed by the petitioner in payment of monthly maintenance amount to the respondents 4 and 5, the arrears of maintenance amount shall be enforced in accordance with section 11 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.07.2022 nl Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking orders ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

nl To

1.The Di