ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent whereby the petitioner’s claim for cancellation of settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent, has been rejected.

It is stated that that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen aged about 76 years. The petitioner had executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is one of his sons, in respect of an extent of 56 cents of land comprised in Survey No.279/1C and the same was registered as Document No.4431 of 2022 dated 07.11.2022 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Cheyyar. According to the petitioner, after obtaining the benefit of the settlement, the 3rd respondent failed to maintain and take care of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached the 2nd 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 3rd respondent. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide his order dated 30.08.2023 thereby directing payment of maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- each by the sons and daughter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, who in turn, confirmed the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.10.2023, who after adjudication confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has four sons and one daughter and, significantly, the settlement deed had been executed only in favour of the 3rd respondent and not in favour of the other son. Learned counsel further contended that the conduct of the 3rd 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 / 1st 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 3rd respondent. Accordingly, he prayed for issuance of suitable directions in the above regard.

Learned government counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd 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/ 1st respondent has, in fact, granted relief to the petitioner by directing payment of monthly maintenance and therefore no further interference is warranted. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer resintegra as the similar issue has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein it is held that once the settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder;

''40.Hence, we have no hesitation to answer the issue by holding that the Sub-Registrar namely, the Registering Authority has no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the deed of conveyance made earlier.

41.Regarding gift or settlement: With regard to u