A settlement deed executed by a senior citizen can only be cancelled under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the deed explicitly contains a condition that the transfer is subject to the provision of basic amenities/maintenance by the transferee.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent and seeking cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the 3^rd respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. It is stated that that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen aged 76 years. The petitioner and his wife had executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of the 3^rd respondent, who is one of his sons, in respect of an extent of 700 sq.ft. of land comprised in Survey No.59/1C and the same was registered as Document No.877 of 2007 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Mayiladuthurai. According to the petitioner, after obtaining the benefit of the settlement, the 3^rd respondent failed to maintain and take care of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife passed away in the year 2009 and thereafter the petitioner was allegedly left uncared for by the 3^rd respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached the 2^nd respondent by filing a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the 3^rd respondent. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner was cultivating agricultural lands and was not in need of maintenance. vide his order dated 30.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent, who in turn, confirmed the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 30.08.2023 and further ordered a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the petitioner payable by the 3^rd respondent.

3. It is the further averment that though the 1^st respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent failed to properly consider the petitioner's request for cancellation of the settlement deed vide order dated 24.11.2023, which is impugned herein. Challenging the said proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated

24.11.2023, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has two sons and three daughters and, significantly, the settlement deed had been executed only in favour of the 3^rd respondent and not in favour of the other son. Learned counsel further contended that the conduct of the 3^rd respondent clearly disentitles him from retaining the benefit under the settlement deed and the authorities ought to have cancelled the same. Therefore, it is the argument of the learned counsel that the appellate authority / 1^st respondent has failed to consider the request of the petitioner and mere ordering maintenance alone is unsustainable and thus, prayed to cancel the settlement deed executed by the petition in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, he prayed for issuance of suitable directions in the above regard.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3^rd respondent is an irrevocable settlement deed and does not contain any condition obligating the settlee to maintain the settlor. He further submitted that the authorities have rightly taken note of the nature of the document and found that there was no clause reserving any right of cancellation in the event of failure to provide maintenance. He vehemently contended that in the absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities constituted under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the document. It is also submitted that the appellate authority