Section 23(1) requires specific maintenance condition in transfer deed for cancellation; absent it, authority lacks jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.28654 of 2023 dated 05.01.2026.

2.Originally the second respondent/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai in his proceedings dated 27.09.2023 cancelling the settlement deed executed by one S.Muthulakshmi, who is the mother of the writ petitioner, in favour of the writ petitioner.

3.It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 26.12.2012 her mother/S.Muthulakshmi executed an unconditional gift deed in her name in Doc.No.1935/2012 dated 26.12.2012. The writ petitioner's brother one D.Swaminathan has filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2015 on the file of the 1stAdditional District Court, Thanjauvr seeking for partition and the same was dismissed for default. At this stage said D.Swaminathan and his wife have repeatedly harassed and threatened the writ petitioner to cancel and re-transfer the house property stands in the name of her mother. While so, the second respondent/mother filed a petition underSection 21of theTamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007seeking for maintenance and also filed a petition to cancel the settlement deed executed by the second respondent stating that the same was obtained under coercion. Without giving proper opportunity of participating in enquiry, the first respondent simply cancelled the gift deed dated 26.12.2012, vide proceedings dated 26.09.2023. The first respondent has failed to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioner as per orders of this Court in WP.(MD)No.3566 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023.

4.The learned Writ Court held that 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. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787 and in case of M.Vasanthi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate and other reported in (2025) 2 Writ L.R.662, the learned Writ Court held that the first respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application for cancellation of the document in the absence of specific recital with regard to the power of the settlor to cancel the settlement and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the mother of the writ petitioner/S.Muthulakshmi has preferred the present writ appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the writ petitioner is not exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal available before the District Collector. During enquiry before the first respondent, the Social Welfare Officer on her report has categorically held that the settlement deed obtained by the writ petitioner from the appellant was based on coercion and false promise. The second respondent admits that she is not willing to take care of the appellant being her mother. In such circumstances, the learned Writ Court ought to have tested the conduct of the second respondent being a daughter wilfully neglecting herself from taking her mother and dismissed her claim.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the settlement deed was executed by her mother, in which, no right was reserved to revoke or cancel the document. Therefore, the first respondent does not have any authority to entertain a complaint seeking to cancellation of the settlement deed on the alleged ground that the daughter is not taking care of her mother