IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Durai : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Dharmapuri.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Dharmapuri Division,

Dharmapuri District.

3.Pacha Gounder

4.Mani : Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his order Na.Ka.No.807/A1/2024 dated 19.05.2025 conforming the order the 2^nd respondent in his order MUU.MU.505/A2 dated 26.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal consequently upheld the validity of the documents in

Doc.No.180/2012, Doc No.2970/2021, Doc.No.5854/2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ganesan

For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R1 and R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 19.05.2025 thereby confirmed the order passed by the second respondent dated 26.02.2025 thereby allowed the complaint lodged by the third respondent and cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The third respondent owns the property comprised in Survey No.723/3E to an extent of 0.53.44 hectares, the property comprised in S.No.729/2D to an extent of 0.08.0 hectares situated at Maniyathana Village, Dharmapur District. The petitioner, who is being the son, the third respondent has settled the property by way of registered settlement deed vide document No.180/2012. That apart, the property comprised in Survey No.723/3E to an extent of 0.22.0 hectares was also settled in favour of the fourth respondent, who is another son of the third respondent by way of registered settlement deed vide Document No.450/2023. In pursuant to the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner, in turn the petitioner has settled the property in favour of his daughters in the year 2021 registered vide documents No.2970/2021 and 5854/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to maintain the third respondent and as such the third respondent was constrained to lodge a complaint under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and sought for cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. After due enquiry, the second respondent allowed the complaint and cancelled the settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the settlement deed, there was no condition to maintain the third respondent. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the third respondent itself is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, he is now ready and willing to maintain the third respondent. However, the third respondent refused to come with the petitioner.

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 adopti