IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.18952 of 2025 and WMP.no.21239 of 2025 R.Babu ...Petitioner -Vs-

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, CHENNAI

2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NORTH CHENNAI, CHENNAI

3.THE SUB REGISTRAR, ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI

4.MEHURINISA

5.SYED ISHAK ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the 1st Respondent vide Se.Mu. Na.Ka.No.2155/ A1 / 2023 dated 12.03.2025 and quash the same and subsequently direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the settlement deeds in Doc 3842 / 2014 dated 5.12.2014, Doc No 457/2017 dated 17.08.2016 and Doc 3167 / 2019 dated 8.11.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader For R4 & 5 : No appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.03.2025 thereby confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.01.2023 thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner seeking cancellation of settlement deed executed in favour of respondents 4 & 5 herein under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

2. On receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the second respondent conducted enquiry after issuance of notice to respondents 4 & 5 herein who are none other than the wife and son of the petitioner respectively and rejected the complaint on the ground that the settlement deed did not contain the twin conditions in order to maintain the complaint under Section 23 of the Act.

3. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that aggreived by the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent and the same was dismissed. On perusal of the said order, it is revealed that the petitioner is the father of the fifth respondent and the husband of the fourth respondent. The petitioner had purchased the property by way of sale deed dated 28.11.2011 registered vide document No.4116 of 2011. Thereafter he had executed settlement deed in respect of the said property in favour of the fourth respondent who is being the wife of the petitioner on 05.12.2014 registered vide document No.3842 of 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner and the fourth respondent had executed settlement deed in favour of the fifth respondent in respect of the very same property on 17.08.2016 vide document No.457 of 2017. There was a condition in the said settlement deed that the fifth respondent shall become absolute owner of the property only after life time of the fourth respondent herein. Further, another settlement deed was executed in favour of the fourth respondent on 08.11.2019 in respect of the very same property by the petitioner and the fifth respondent herein and registered vide document No.3167 of 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was neglected to be maintained by the fourth and fifth respondents herein. They also harassed the petitioner and continuously ill-treated him without even spending any money for his medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint under Section 23 (1) of the Act. Though no consideration was passed for execution of settlement deed, the consideration for executing the settlement deed is based on human conduct, caring and conscious. The transfer was made admittedly out of love and affection. The settlor in the settlement deed would expect in the natural course of human conduct that the settlee continues to behave in the same manner as behaved before execution of the settlement deed. Therefore, it would form part of condition of the transaction for future conduct as well.

4. Thus, in the absence of any other circumstances, it must be presumed that the settlor expects continuation o