2025:MHC:873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WA No. 3096 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 23514 OF 2024

1. Natchimuthu 2. Chinnappan Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

3.Kaliammal Respondent(s)

WA No. 3096 of 2024 PRAYER To set aside the impugned order dated 28-06-2024 made in WP.No.17272 of

2021 by allowing this Writ Appeal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.D.R.Arunkumar For Mr.R.Kannan For Respondent(s): Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan AGP For R1 and R2 Mr.B.Srinivasan and Mr.K.Rajapandi For R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the order dated 28.06.2024 in W.P.No.17272 of 2021. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The 3rd respondent, a senior citizen, had lodged a complaint with the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, [hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act'].

2. The RDO conducted an inquiry by affording opportunities to the parties and the statements of the senior citizen and the appellants were recorded. The senior citizen before the RDO deposed that she had been ill-treated and neglected by the appellants. Moreover, being an illiterate woman, the senior citizen claimed that the appellants had fraudulently transferred her properties.

The RDO ordered for grant of maintenance. An appeal was filed by the senior citizen before the District Collector/Appellate Authority. The District Collector elaborately considered the facts and the manner in which the senior citizen were neglected by her own son. The order of the District Collector reveals that the senior citizen was not only neglected but the property transfer was fraudulent. Therefore, by invoking the deemed Clause under the provisions of the Act, the settlement deeds executed by the senior citizen in favour of the appellant were declared as null and void.

3. Challenging the order of the District Collector, a writ petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge considered the facts and made a finding that an implied condition would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. In the present case, the condition is implied, since the 3rd respondent/senior citizen is an illiterate and she has not even signed the document, but her thumb impression was obtained. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Court dismissed the the writ petition, which resulted in institution of the present Intra-Court Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the appellants are ready and willing to maintain the senior citizen or in alternate they are ready to pay any reasonable monthly maintenance amount if fixed by this Court. That apart, the allegation of fraud is false and therefore, the writ appeal is to be considered.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent would oppose by stating that the senior citizen is an illiterate woman and the settlement deeds were executed in a fraudulent manner. The statement of the senior citizen before the RDO is sufficient to form an opinion that the senior citizen was totally neglected by the appellants. Thus, there is no infirmity and the writ appeal is to be rejected.

6. This Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

7. A careful reading of the settlement deeds reveal that the senior citizen executed the same out of love and affection, and for the future welfare of the appellants. The very spirit of the express statement in the settlement deed would be sufficient to form an opinion that the senior citizen was hopeful that she would be taken care of by the appellants during her old age and for her life time, with love and affection.

8. When the appellants neglected the senior citizen, the