Kerala High Court
Devaki Amma vs Mavila Sathi on 4 November, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WA.No. 2275 of 2016 () IN WP(C).9108/2014
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)9108/2014 DATED 04-11-2016
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.3:
----------------------------
DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 84 YEARS,
W/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O. GOVINDAN, SRUTHILAYAM,
PANICHIPPARA, PAZHASSI AMSOM,
NELLUNNI, MATTANUR P.O, PIN- 670 702.
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4:
----------------------------------------------------
1. MAVILA SATHI,
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN,
SREENIVAS, NELLUNNI, MATTANNUR P.O, PIN- 670 702.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - 695001.
3. PRESIDING OFFICER,
MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY, KANNUR - 670 101.
4. GOVINDAN,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
SRUTHILAYAM, PANICHIPPARA, PAZHASSI AMSOM,
NELLUNNI, MATTANUR, P.O, PIN - 670 702.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SANJITH
R1 BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.JASMIN BABY
R2 & 3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND
R4 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
Antony Dominic,Ag.CJ
&
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 2275 of 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November 2017
J U D G M E N T
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J The appellant is the mother, and she was the third respondent in W.P(C). No.9108 of 2014. The first respondent here is the daughter who filed the writ petition questioning Ext.P1 order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("theAct")
2. Briefly stated, the appellant has three children: one daughter and two sons. She has settled portions of her property on these children and started living with the first respondent daughter. Later, in addition to what she had earlier settled, she has also given 10 cents of property to the first respondent.
3. In course of time, contending that the first respondent, her daughter, had neglected to maintain her, the appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal--MCC No.73 of 2013--seeking from her daughter W.A.No.2275 of 2016 2 monthly maintenance and also return of only the additional 10 cents of land she had earlier settled on her daughter.
4. In terms of Section 6 of the Act, the Tribunal referred the matter for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer, before whom both parties appeared. The conciliation resulted in Ext.P3 order. The daughter, as seen from the document, agreed to reconvey the 10 cents land, besides paying Rs.500/- per month as maintenance. Acting on this conciliation report, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order.
5. But, about three months later, the daughter filed W.P(C) No.9108 of 2014 contending, among other things, that she was not aware of the contents in Ext.P3 conciliation report, that she had never been served with a copy, and that the Conciliation Officer simply asked her to sign on the dotted lines, which she did. She has also contended that she bona fide believed that she was asked to pay only maintenance and that the re- conveyance of property never fell for consideration. Accordingly, she urged this Court to set aside the Tribunal's Ext.P1 order.
6. Indeed, the learned Single Judge of this Court, through judgment dated 4.11.2016, set aside Ext.P1 in part: An option was given to the mother either to live with the daughter or to get a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/-, instead of Rs.500/- originally granted by the tribunal; as to the W.A.No.2275 of 2016 3 10 cents of land, the Tribunal's order for re-conveyance was set aside. This time, it was the mother's turn to file an intra court appeal--this writ appeal.
7. Sri Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellant/mother strenuously contended that the Act is a beneficial legislation and is aimed at providing necessary succor to the aged parents and other senior citizens who could not maintain themselves. According to him, the mother is aged and had distributed all her properties to the children, more particular to the first respondent-daughter, who got more than usual. She has also submitted that despite her daughter's gross negligence in maintaining her, the mother wanted back only the property she had additionally given to the daughter, besides having a modest amount of maintenance from the daughter.
8. The learned counsel has also contended that viewed from any perspective, the impugned judgment could not be sustained, more particularly because the Tribunal's impugned order suffers from no illegality to be subjected to any judicial review.
9. On the contrary, Sri Sanjith, the learned counsel for the first respondent, with equal vehemence, has contended that the mother is only a pawn in the hands of her son, who has orchestrated the whole litigation W.A.No.2275 of 2016 4 with no basis. To elaborate, Sri Sanjith submitted that the daughter had all along been maintaining the mother well and is still willing to maintain her. Even acting on the impugned judgment, she has been paying the enhanced maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her mother.
10. Sri Sanjith has submitted that Ext.P3 document has come out under the circumstances which vitiate its validity. According to him, the daughter had never been given an opportunity before the Conciliation Officer to know the true nature of the proceedings. Even she was prevented from having the assistance of a lawyer. She was told that she had to pay maintenance to her mother. And she readily agreed. According to him, the question of re-conveying the land never fell for discussion.
11. In the end, the learned counsel urged us not to interfere with the impugned judgment because the mother never wanted any maintenance or any piece of property re-conveyed to her but for the influence of her son, who is not a party to any proceedings.
12. Heard Sri Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjith, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.
13. As has been rightly contended by the appellant's counsel, the Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at ameliorating the lot of the W.A.No.2275 of 2016 5 distraught parents and other senior citizens. Undoubtedly, the mother settled certain properties on the children including the first respondent daughter. Having chosen to live with this daughter, the mother settled some more property on her. For whatever reason, having been disenchanted by the daughter's alleged mistreatment, the mother claimed maintenance and also wanted to recover the 10 cents of land, which, in the first place, she settled on her daughter conditionally that she should look after the mother.
14. Section 23 of the Act eminently empowers the settler-senior citizen to re-claim the property if the condition is violated. Here, as a pre- adjudicatory measure, the Tribunal referred the matter to conciliation, where the daughter as well as the mother participated. Though there is a contention that the daughter had no occasion to know the contents of Ext.P3, it is too late in the day to contend that she had been misled or duped into an unwilling settlement. All along, she had an opportunity of raising her objections before the Tribunal, which acted on Ext.P3 to render Ext.P1. Once the document has been a product of consensus, party to it cannot resile and challenge it. Even otherwise, if at all an agreement is vitiated by fraud, the victim's invoking the summary jurisdiction of this Court is hardly the appropriate remedy.
W.A.No.2275 of 2016 6
15. Under these circumstances, we cannot, but uphold Ext.P1 order. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside, and Ext.P1 is restored. But we clarify that the first respondent daughter is not remediless if at all she asserts that Ext.P3 lacks consensus ad idem and is a product of either fraud or misinformation. She can take appropriate steps to challenge that.
No order on costs.
Sd/-
Antony Dominic, Acting Chief Justice Sd/-
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge sou.