Madras High Court
D.Amudha vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 January, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.01.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.28654 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.24727 of 2023 and 2871 of 2024
D.Amudha ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
2.S.Muthulakshmi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order of the first respondent in his proceedings in THA.PA.03/2023/A7, dated
27.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For R1 : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Pozhilan
for M/s.Arul Vadivel Associates
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent dated 27.09.2023, wherein the settlement deed executed by
the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled.
2.A perusal of the records reveals that the second respondent herein has
executed a registered settlement deed on 26.12.2012 in favour of the writ
petitioner, who is her daughter. The document further reveals that the settlor
has not retained any right either to cancel or revoke the settlement deed.
3.The second respondent herein had lodged a petition before the first
respondent on 16.05.2023 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the settlement deed had been obtained
by force and her daughter, the writ petitioner, is not taking care of her. The first
respondent, after hearing both parties, arrived at a finding that the writ
petitioner is not taking care of the second respondent and consequently, directed
the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 26.12.2012. This order is put under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
4.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the settlement
deed was executed by her mother on 26.12.2012, in which no right was reserved
to revoke or cancel the document. In such circumstances, the first respondent
does not have any authority whatsoever to entertain a complaint seeking
cancellation of the settlement deed on the alleged ground that the daughter is
not taking care of her mother.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, in the case of
Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and Another, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787,
in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit and others and the order of
this Court reported in (2025) 2 Writ L.R. 662 in the case of the M.Vasanthi Vs
The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate and other, in
support of his contentions.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that
as against the order passed by the first respondent, an appeal lies to the
appellate authority under Section 16 of the above said Act and therefore, the
writ petition should not be entertained. He further submitted that the settlement
deed was executed in favour of the writ petitioner only under the fond hope that
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
she would take care of her mother. When the petitioner has not taken of her
mother, the original authority, after detailed consideration, has proceeded to
cancel the said document. Therefore, the order may not be interfered with.
7.Heard both sides and persued the material records.
8.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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sudesh
Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and Another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, has
held in Paragraph No.14 as follows:-
14. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of
transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift
or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the
following two conditions must be fulfilled:
(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and
basic physical needs to the transferor; and
(b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs to the transferor.
If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction,
the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes
voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance
Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil
Sharan Dixit and others, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787, has followed the said
judgment. After following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
Court in case of M.Vasanthi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Divisional Magistrate and other, reported in (2025) 2 Writ L.R. 662, has held
in Paragraph No.17.5 as follows:-
(17.5) The 3rd respondent had made a petition before the
2nd respondent to cancel the settlement deeds executed by him in
favour of his late son as his late son and his wife, the petitioner
herein had failed to take care and maintain himself and his wife
though they had got the documents executed on this promise.
Under Section 23, if a senior citizen has transferred property to
any third party and in the transfer deed, a condition has been
imposed upon the transferee to maintain the transferer, both in
terms of providing his basic amenities as well as his basic needs
and such transferee fails to comply with the conditions, then in
such a case, the transferer can have the transfer deed declared
void. This is on the premise that the failure to comply with the
conditions would imply that the document has been got executed
by fraud / coercion / undue influence. [Section 23(1)] Likewise,
where a senior citizen receives maintenance from out of an estate
and such estate or a part thereof is transferred, the right to
receive the maintenance can be enforced against the transferee if
the transferee has notice of the right. Such a right can be
enforced only in a case where a transfer is gratuitous, but not in
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
the case where the transfer is for consideration and without
notice of the right [Section 23(2)]. Section 23(2) further provides
that where a senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights
under Sub Sections (1) and (2), then action can be taken on his
behalf by any of the organisations that have been set out in the
explanation to Section 5(1) of the Act. In the light of the language
of Section 23(1), it is clear that in order to declare a transfer to
be void, the transfer deed should contain a specific recital that
the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee would
take care of the transferer and provide his basic amenities as well
as physical needs. This position has been declared by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (14)
SCC 225 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 in Sudesh Chhikara Vs.
Ramti Devi & another. The learned Judges had expounded the
following essentials for the application of Section 23(1) of the Act
which is set out herein below :
“(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor; andW.P.(MD) Nos.
18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs to the transferor.”
10.In view of the above cited judgments, it is clear that unless there is a
specific recital in the settlement deed to the effect that the beneficiary should
take care and maintain the settlor, the document cannot be declared as void or
be cancelled. In the present case, admittedly, the second respondent has recited
in the document that she does not reserve any power to cancel the document.
Therefore, it is clear that the first respondent does not have any jurisdiction to
entertain an application for cancellation of the document in the absence of
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
specific recital with regard to the power of the settlor to cancel the settlement.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is
maintainable.
11.In view of the above said facts, the impugned order of the first
respondent in THA.PA.03/2023/A7, dated 27.09.2023, is set aside and the Writ
Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
05.01.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
cp
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cp W.P.(MD)No.28654 of 2023 05.01.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 11:39:32 am )