BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.P.(MD)No.28654 of 2023

and

W.M.P(MD) Nos.24727 of 2023 and 2871 of 2024

D.Amudha ...Petitioner

Vs

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Pattukottai,

Thanjavur District.

2.S.Muthulakshmi ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in his proceedings in THA.PA.03/2023/A7, dated

27.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

For R1 : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia

Special Government Pleader

For R2 : Mr.M.Pozhilan

for M/s.Arul Vadivel Associates

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 27.09.2023, wherein the settlement deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled.

2.A perusal of the records reveals that the second respondent herein has executed a registered settlement deed on 26.12.2012 in favour of the writ petitioner, who is her daughter. The document further reveals that the settlor has not retained any right either to cancel or revoke the settlement deed.

3.The second respondent herein had lodged a petition before the first respondent on 16.05.2023 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the settlement deed had been obtained by force and her daughter, the writ petitioner, is not taking care of her. The first respondent, after hearing both parties, arrived at a finding that the writ petitioner is not taking care of the second respondent and consequently, directed the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 26.12.2012. This order is put under challenge in the present writ petition.

4.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the settlement deed was executed by her mother on 26.12.2012, in which no right was reserved to revoke or cancel the document. In such circumstances, the first respondent does not have any authority whatsoever to entertain a complaint seeking cancellation of the settlement deed on the alleged ground that the daughter is not taking care of her mother.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and Another, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787 in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit and others and the order of this Court reported in (2025) 2 Writ L.R. 662 in the case of the M.Vasanthi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate and other, in support of his contentions.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that as against the order passed by the first respondent, an appeal lies to the appellate authority under Section 16 of the above said Act and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. He further submitted that the settlement deed was executed in favour of the writ petitioner only under the fond hope that she would take care of her mother. When the petitioner has not taken of her mother, the original authority, after detailed consideration, has proceeded to cancel the said document. Therefore, the order may not be interfered with.

7.Heard both sides and persued the material records.

8.A perusal of the settlement deed dated 26.12.2012 clearly reveals that the settlor has specifically recited that she does not have any power either to alter or cancel the gift deed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and Another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, has held in Paragraph No.14 as follows:-

14. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

(a) The transfer must have been made subject