IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No. 4 5401 of 2025 and WMP.No. 5 0581 of 2025 K.Kalaivani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, M.SINGARAVELAR MAALIGAI, 62 RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI COLLECTORATE, CHENNAI 600 001

2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL CHENNAI, 5- 73 SH 112, GANDHI NAGAR, ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTENSION, CHENNAI 600 040

3.SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, SEMBIAM, 340 PAPER MILLS ROAD, JAGANNATHAN COLONY, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600 011

4.S.AMUDHA ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Se.Mu.No.A4/ 874/ 2025 dated 3.11.2025 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to restore the validity of the Settlement Deed vide Document no. 171/ 2022 dated 19.01.2022 For Petitioner : Dr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.K.Surendran, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 03.11.2025 thereby allowing the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent herein. She has two brothers. She got married in the year 2021. While her father was alive, the property owned by her father and the fourth respondent herein was settled in favour of the petitioner by the registered settlement deed dated 19.01.2022 vide document No.171 of 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father died on 11.03.2022 due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter, the fourth respondent filed complaint before the second respondent under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. After due enquiry, the second respondent allowed the complaint and set aside the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent alone being co-executant of the settlement deed cannot challenge the settlement deed under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the fourth respondent cannot challenge the settlement deed as co-executant. Further, the settlement deed did not contain any twin conditions as stipulated under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another rendered in Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021 dated 06.12.2022.

5. This court already dealt with the present issue in several writ petitions including the case of Mohamed Dayan Vs. District Collector., order dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.No.28190 of 2022 in which this Court, after discussing various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various judgements of High Court, held as follows:-

“33. Close reading of the principles considered by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, there is no ambiguity with reference to the purpose and object sought to be achieved under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act.

Section 4(2) of the Act, unambiguously stipulates that the obligation of the children or the relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase “lead a normal life” Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen Rules, enumerates that “it shall be the duty of the District Collector to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity”. Therefore, norma