Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12151
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Vijayakumar, J
M.Saraswati – Appellant
Versus
The District Magistrate cum – Respondent
WP(MD). No.2917 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sankarapandian S
For the Respondents: M. Senthil Ayyanar
Where a statutory remedy of appeal exists under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, the court may direct the party to pursue such remedy, allowing for the condonation of delay based on age-related ailments.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, where a senior citizen sought to quash an order rejecting the cancellation of a Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.05.2009. The court noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the said Act. The court addressed whether the petitioner could bypass the statutory appeal process. It was reasoned that while a statutory remedy exists, the petitioner's age-related ailments justified a direction to allow the filing of an appeal regardless of the limitation period. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.(A2)/3019/2022 dated 15.02.2023, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to declare the Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.05.2009 in document no. 1981 of 2009 as void and restore the property title to the petitioner.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the senior citizen seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, wherein he had rejected the request of the petitioner for cancellation of the settlement deed.
As per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, the writ petitioner is having an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the said Act. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that due to age related ailments, the writ petitioner could not prefer an appeal to the first respondent in time and hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
Considering the above facts, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal to the first respondent. If any appeal is filed on or before 27.02.2026, the same shall be entertained by the first respondent without any reference to the period of limitation.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
No Costs.
04.02.2026
tta
Note:
The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order after getting necessary acknowledgment from the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
