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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
Valarmathy – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority/Dist – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12237 of 2023 & 11271 & 11272 of 2024 W.P(MD)No.14438 of 2023 Valarmathy ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Appellate Authority/District Collector Under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Presiding Officer of Maintenance Tribunal /

Revenue Divisional Officer Under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens 2007, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3. Nallappa Gounder

4. Vasuki ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No.19202/2022/C1, dated 18.05.2023 confirming the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.7985/2021/A1, dated 25.05.2022 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mrs.J.Jeyapriya Govt. Advocate (for R1 and R2)

Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan (for R4)

No appearance for R3 W.P(MD)No.12665 of 2024 S.Vasuki ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Appellate Authority/District Collector Under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Presiding Officer of Maintenance Tribunal /

Revenue Divisional Officer Under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens 2007, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.N.Karuppathaal

4.Valarmathy

5.N.Karupasamy ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No.19202/2022/C1, dated 18.05.2023 confirming the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.7985/2021/A1, dated 25.05.2022 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mrs.J.Jeyapriya Govt. Advocate (for R1 and R2)

Mr.V.Muthukamatchi (for R3 & R5)

No appearance for R4

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the cancellation of the settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioners in the above writ petitions under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. One Nallappa Gounder is the father of the petitioners and the fifth respondent. The third respondent in W.P(MD)No.12665 of 2024 is their mother. In the year 2015, in the presence of well-wishers of the family, an arrangement was arrived at in respect of the family properties. Pursuant thereto, Nallappa Gounder executed a settlement deed dated 15.07.2015, registered as Doc.No.1694 of 2015 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Dindigul, in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.12665 of 2024, and another settlement deed of the same date in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 14438 of 2023, registered as Doc.No.1695 of 2015. Under the said settlement deeds, the respective properties were settled in favour of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners would submit that, on the date of the arrangement, their father, along with their sister had jointly executed another settlement deed in favour of the fifth respondent, which was also registered on 15.07.2015. The petitioners state that subsequently, the revenue records were mutated in their names. While so, in June 2021, at the instance of the fifth respondent, who desired the house property, the petitioners’ father filed a false complaint against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners’ father and the fifth respondent began to cause disturbances in the petitioners’ peaceful enjoyment of the property. The petitioners’ father even lodged a false complaint against the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.12665 of 2024 and her husband, Dhandapani.

4. The pet

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top