SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 30544

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
R.SAMBASIVAM – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB-REGISTRAR, – Respondent



A settlement deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally; remedies for maintenance are available under the Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act.

Headnote:

Cancellation - Settlement Deed - Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act, 2002 - The court addressed the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed, emphasizing its nature as a conveyance document, and underscored the petitioner’s alternative recourse under the Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act, 2002 for claiming maintenance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the cancellation of a refusal check slip regarding a settlement deed, asserting that his son was not maintaining him. The petitioner claimed a right to unilaterally cancel the deed.

Issues: Whether a settlement deed can be cancelled unilaterally and what recourse is available to an individual seeking maintenance from a family member.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement deed, being a document of conveyance, cannot be cancelled unilaterally, and the petitioner has a legal remedy under the Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act, 2002 to seek maintenance.

Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry.

ORDER

Though the petitioner seeks for a certiorari to cancel the Refusal Check Slip issued by the first respondent, on going through the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner wants unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed. The settlement deed being a document of conveyance cannot be cancelled unilaterally. However, the petitioner is not without any recourse. 2. The allegation is that the second respondent, who is the son is not maintaining his father (petitioner). The remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act, 2002 . He has already invoked the said provision by way of representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai Central on 07.01.2021. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said representation is still pending without any progress. 4. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, this Court suo~motu impleads the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai Central as the third respondent to the writ petition. 5. Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the newly impleaded third respondent. She would submit that the petitioner-s representation dated 07.01.2021 will be disposed of within a period of four months. 6. The said statement of Mrs.Yamuna Devi is taken on record. 7. Therefore, the newly impleaded third respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry in terms of the Maintenance and Protection of Senior Citizens Act, 2002 and pass orders, after hearing the second respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top