IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.28585 and 28586 of 2022 and 41887 of 2025 Malarvizhi Pinheiro ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai-600 001.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Puzhal, Chennai-600 060.

3.The Sub Registrar, District of Joint I, Chennai North.

4.Pamela Manuel

5.Vasanthan Pinheiro ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 bearing Na.Ka.No.A4/3305/2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai Government Advocate for R1 Mr.V.Selvaraj for R5 Mr.R.Veeramani for R4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.A4/3305/2022 by the second respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the fourth respondent and sister of the fifth respondent. Out of love and affection, the fourth respondent executed a settlement deed dated 22.01.2015 in favour of the petitioner bearing Document No.35 of 2015 on the file of the third respondent in respect of half share in the total extent of the property being at Old Door No.167/1, New Door No.334, Thambu Chetty Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai, to an extent of 2962 sq.ft. In the settlement deed, there were clauses, in which, it has been clearly stated that “the settlor thus settles the schedule mentioned property unto the settlee to have and to hold the same absolutely after the life time of the settlor; the settlor hereby covenants that she shall not revoke this Deed of Settlement for any reason whatsoever and that this Deed of Settlement shall be an irrevocable one; the settlor doth hereby declares that she shall collect monthly rents from the tenants in the Schedule mentioned property till her life time and also shall pay all the rates, taxes and other public charges in respect of the Schedule mentioned property; and the settlee shall cause mutation of names in the Chennai Corporation property tax record, water and sewerage tax record, Patta, Electricity Board record and other records relating to the Schedule mentioned property, only after the life time of the Settlor”. The aforesaid clauses in the settlement deed make it clear that the fourth respondent is not entitled to cancel the settlement deed and the settlement deed is irrevocable one and if at all the petitioner has committed any violation, it can be decided only in a Parents Senior Petition. While so, the second respondent, without considering the fact that the settlement deed is irrevocable one, canceled the settlement deed at the instance of the fourth respondent in an application for maintenance of parents which is not sustainable one. Hence, he prays for allowing this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that out of love and affection, the fourth respondent settled the property in favour of the petitioner and as per Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if there is any violation, the first and second respondents are entitled to cancel the settlement deed and such power exercised by the first and second respondents need not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maruthayairmal (Deceased) vs. Pushpam reported in

2010(2) MWN (Civil) 405. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, learne