ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 17.07.2023, thereby dismissed the complaint lodged by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter called as “the Act”) and the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.10.2023, thereby dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is the mother and the fourth respondent is her son. The petitioner got married to one Alapakazh and gave birth to one daughter and one son, who is the fourth respondent herein. The daughter got married and living separately. The house property consisting of land and building to an extent of 1380 sq.ft, situated at Tiruvannamalai town, was originally owned by the petitioner's father and the same was settled in favour of the petitioner by the registered sale deed dated 24.05.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner and her husband constructed a building in the said plot and they were living there. While being so, the fourth respondent added some drug in the food and administered to the petitioner and her husband. Thereafter, they were brought to the Register Office and obtained their signature in the settlement deed and registered the same as settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the subject property on 05.03.2022. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner and her husband were driven out from the said house. Therefore, the petitioner and her husband could not maintain themselves and lodged a complaint before the second respondent.

4. The second respondent dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the settlement deed does not contain a specific clause that the settlement deed was executed in favour of the fourth respondent, on condition that the fourth respondent shall maintain the petitioner and her husband. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was partly allowed, thereby directed the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner.

5. On issuance of notice by this Court to the fourth respondent, it was returned as “no such person”. It revealed that the fourth respondent is very much residing in the said address and wantonly returned the notice as if there is no such person. It shows that the fourth respondent evaded the service of notice.

6. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides that when a property has been transferred by way of gift or otherwise by the senior citizen on the condition that the transferee or ownee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor or the owner, but such transferee or ownee subsequently fails to provide such amenities, then it would be deemed that the transfer was made by fraud, or coercion or under undue influence and the transferor would have the option of obtaining declaration that such transfer was void. In the case on hand, the mother of the petitioner had settled the subject property to the son out of love and affection and as a reward for the respect, reward and care that the son had shown to the mother.

7. It is relevant to rely upon the portion of the settlement deed vide Document No.942 of 2022 dated 05.03.2022 as follows:-

eP vdJ xnu kfd; Mtha;/

“

cd; kPJ vdf;F ,Uf;Fk; md;gpd;

gpupaj;jpdhYk;. tpRthrj;jpdhYk;. eP vd;dplk; ele;J bfhs;Sk; jd;ikapd; ngupYk; vd;dhy; cdJ bgaUf;F xU brhj;J Mjutpid bra;J itf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w vz;zk;

bfhz;L///

”

8. A perusal of the settlement deed, it reveals that being pleased with the care, love, affection, respect and good behaviour, the mother of the petitioner had executed a settlement deed as a reward in favour of her son and in discharge of his responsibilities towards t