IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and

WMP NO. 33267 and 33268 OF 2022

R.Venkatesan

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector

Vellore (Cum) The Chairman of the

Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens,

Collectorate, Vellore.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer

Vellore (cum) The Chairman Of The Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior

Citizens, Collectorate, Vellore.

3.T.RenuGopal 4.Karunakaran 5.Velmurugan Respondent(s)

PRAYER;This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in P.M. D3 / 2678 / 2022 and quash the Order dated 21.08.2022 made therein as well as

the Order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2020 in M.M. (A2) / 0006 / 2020.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Rajendiran, Agp For RR1 And 2 M/s. S.N. Ravichandran, For R3 (Died)

M/s. P. Ganesan, For R4,R5 ORDER This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent in P.M. D3 / 2678 / 2022 dated 21.08.2022 made therein as well as the order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2020 in M.M. (A2) / 0006 / 2020.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is a father, had settled 5 cents of land in favour of the petitioner under irrevocable settlement deed without any condition. The petitioner has conveyed a portion of the property settled to one Sekar under registered sale deed dated 30.11.2015. The third respondent preferred a petition before the second respondent under 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, contending that his sons are not maintaining him and that the settlement deed is to be cancelled. By proceedings dated 18.11.2020, the second respondent directed that the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner be cancelled. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent vide order dated 21.08.2022 confirmed the order of the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4343 [Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another] has held that a sale deed or a deed of conveyance other than testamentary dispositions which is executed and registered cannot be unilaterally cancelled and that as regards gift or settlement deed, a deed of revocation or cancellation is permissible only in a case which fall under Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable one.

4. The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the father of the petitioner died. Therefore, his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondents 4 & 5.

5.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3,4 and 5 and perused the materials available on record.

6.Admittedly, the petitioner has executed irrevocable settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, without any condition. In the absence of any condition in the settlement deed, the same cannot be cancelled by the second respondent or the official respondents. This issue has been covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court had held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder;

''31.Hence as per Rule 55 of the rules approved by the State, the Registering Officer is bound to consider any objections as to the identity of person appearing before him as executant or authority as representing the e