IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.27492 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.30001 of 2024 D.Eswari .... Petitioner Vs

1.The Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Erode District.

2.Palanisamy .... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1618594/2023/3C4 and quash the proceedings dated 24.08.2024 passed therein and further declare the settlement deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of 2^nd respondent in Document No.150 of 2012 dated 23.01.2012 and Document No.1687 of 2020 dated 12.07.2020 registered in the office of Sub Registrar at Ammapettai as void.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran For R1 : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.E.C.Ramesh

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the first respondent, thereby partly confirmed the order passed by the second respondent and ordered maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and the order dated 11.10.2023, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the second respondent and ordered to give the possession of the property in favour of the petitioner for her enjoyment.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is the mother and the second respondent is the son. The petitioner has two sons : one son died and the other son viz., the second respondent herein, is alive. The petitioner owned a property comprised in Sec.No.63/6, S.No.268/1 to 7, 8A, 10, 12 situated at Kesarimangalam Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. That apart, the petitioner also inherited some properties by way of partition. While being so, the second respondent, being the elder son, compelled the petitioner to execute a settlement deed and transferred all immovable properties owned by the petitioner in his favour by a registered settlement deed dated 23.01.2012. Once again, by another settlement deed dated 12.07.2020, the property, which was purchased by the petitioner, was also settled in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner had with a fond hope that he will maintain her during her life time and had executed the settlement deeds. However, after execution of the settlement deed dated 12.07.2020, the petitioner was left in distress and was not maintained by the second respondent.

4. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to lodge a complaint under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) before the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On receipt of the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued with a notice to the petitioner and the second respondent for enquiry and directed the second respondent to hand over possession of the properties, which were settled in his favour and also restrained the second respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by an order dated 24.08.2024, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent and also ordered maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

payable by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner herein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the second respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the subject property in favour of the petitioner for her enjoyment, the petitioner was not allowed to cultivate the land. In fact, the sugarcane, which was cultivated by the petitioner, was harvested by the second respondent. Though the petitioner lodged a complaint, the jurisdictional pol