IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

and

WMP No.45897 of 2025

A.R.Nivethithasri

Petitioner

Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Coimbatore South State Bank Road,

Opp To Railway Station, Gopalapuram,

Coimbatore 641 018

2.The District Collector

Coimbatore South State Bank Road,

Opp To Railway Station, Gopalapuram,

Coimbatore 641 018 3.T.N. Ramakrishnan

S/o Late K Dhantapani 8/105 Sengattur Thottam Thennampalayam Arasu Sulur

T.K. Coimbatore 641 407

Respondents

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records in Na.Ka No. 4644/ 2025 / A1 dated 24.09.2025 on the file for the 1st respondent and quash

the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

For Petitioner Mr..Parthasarathy For Respondents: Mr.R.Murthy, Govt. Advocate (for R1 and R2)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2025 thereby cancelling the settlement deed dated 16.03.2024 executed in favour of the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent under Section 23 of the Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

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

3. The petitioner is the daughter of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 0.61 1/2 cents comprised in SF.No.315/3 situated at Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore. Thereafter, the said property was settled in favour of the petitioner by the settlement deed dated 16.03.2024 vide Document No.4232 of 2024.

4. While being so, as the petitioner failed to maintain her father, her father-the 3rd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 23 of the Act. After due enquiry, the 1st respondent cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, out of love and affection, the 3rd respondent had executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on account of ill-advice from others, he had filed the complaint before the 1^st respondent to cancel the said settlement deed. It is also submitted that the subject property is ancestral in nature and therefore, the petitioner’s father had no absolute right to deal with the property. It is further contended that the conditions as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, do not find place in the Settlement Deed. Hence, the same cannot be cancelled under the said provision. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement of this court reported in (2025) 4 MLJ 150 – Karuppan Vs. District Magistrate cum District Collector, Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi and others.

6. This Court has 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 different High Courts of India, held in favour of the senior citizen who executed the settlement deed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder 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