ORDER

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus seeking to call for the records of the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, District Collector/Appellate Tribunal for Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare at Chennai and to quash the same.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been contended that the writ petitioner who is a minor and grand daughter of the 4th respondent, was a beneficiary of a Settlement Deed dated 01.06.2022, registered as Document No.4277 of 2022 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam with respect to a property viz., Flat No.2, First Floor, Sai Krishna Apartments, Park View Street, Alwarthirunagar, Valasarawakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

3. The 4^th respondent owing to various grievances, had given a petition before the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer/Tribunal for Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare at Chennai seeking to cancel the said Settlement Deed.

4. In the first instance, the 2nd respondent had rejected the said application. The4th respondent then preferred a further appeal before the 1st respondent/Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Chennai. The order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent reversing the decision of the 2nd respondent and cacelling the aforementioned Settlement Deed, is put in challenge in this writ petition.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a minor and therefore, reciprocal promise cannot be extracted from a minor. Even if such a clause is specifically mentioned in a Settlement Deed, it is stated that as a minor, the petitioner would be incapable of performance of any such promise. It is also contended that the 4th respondent is a retired Government employee and is receiving pension and therefore, does not suffer from any monetary shortcoming and therefore, the issue of payment of maintenance would not arise. It is further contended that the 4^th respondent had actually undergone three surgeries and that his daughter/mother of the writ petitioner who is also a medical professional had actually taken care of her father/4^th respondent and that therefore there has been no breach of any condition if ever imposed in the Settlement Deed.

6. It is further contended that the grand mother of the writ petitioner, had a estranged relationship with the 4th respondent, necessitating the 4th respondent to institute HMOP No.2060 of 2024 before the Family Court at Chennai against his wife. The mother of the writ petitioner had taken care of her mother/wife of the 4th respondent and that was the cause of grievance for the 4th respondent to give a representation seeking to cancel the Settlement Deed of the said property which Settlement Deed had been granted in favour of the writ petitioner herein.

7. The learned counsel stated that the mother of the writ petitioner is always ready and willing to maintain the 4th respondent. It is contended that since the 4th respondent is getting pension and is not facing any financial difficulty and also because the writ petitioner is a minor, the order of the 1st respondent canceling the Settlement Deed should be interfered with by this Court.

8. Notice had been directed to the 4th respondent and counsel had entered appearance and counter had also been filed.

9. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent in his arguments pointed out that the 4th respondent, being a Government employee is entitled to receive pension for the services rendered by him during his period of service as Government employee and that is a right accrued and cannot be equated to any maintenance which the mother of the writ petitioner is obliged to pay and also to maintain the 4th respondent.

10. It is contended that merely because the 4th respondent is receiving pension would not disqualify him from seeking maintenance from the mother of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Settlement Deed contained a very specific clause that the