Madras High Court
Shirley Annaporani vs The District Collector on 23 June, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
Shirley Annaporani ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
5. S.Jaideep Samuel ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
petitioner’s representation, dated 21.04.2025 as per Rule 21 (i) of the Tamil Nadu
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and to take
appropriate action against the fifth respondent and evict the fifth respondent from
the petitioner’s house bearing Door No.633, MS Road, Vadasery, Vettornimadam
Post, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
For petitioner : Mr. C. Sankar Prakash
For respondents :Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R2 to R4
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 21.04.2025 as per Rule 21 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent and evict the fifth respondent from the petitioner’s house bearing Door No.633, MS Road, Vadasery, Vettornimadam Post, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent appears to be the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 third son of the petitioner and already, the petitioner has dispute with the first son, namely, S.Pradeep Dhass. The petitioner has already taken steps for cancelling the settlement deed in Doc.No.1157 of 2012 on 05.05.2012, purportedly executed in favour of her first son. An order came to be passed in W.P.(MD) No.849 of 2025 dated 09.01.2025, wherein this Court had ordered as under:
“8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is serving abroad and he is continuing to serve abroad even now, I can understand the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the second respondent herein is quashed and it is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. It is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 5 and 6. In case of difficulty for the petitioner to appear for personal hearing, his wife or any representative as authorised by the petitioner can be permitted by the second respondent to represent his case in his behalf. The second respondent can even resort to call the petitioner at the instance of his wife through Video conference mode or through Whatsapp call.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer has also passed the order against her first son, namely, Pradeep Dhass on 14.03.2025 in his proceedings bearing reference Moo.Mo.Aa.5/104/2025.
3/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 Relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“tprhuiz KbT:
khz;Gik nrd;id cau;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; njhlug;gl;l W.P(MD)849/2025 tof;fpy; 09.01.2025 Mk; Njjp gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;gb kDjhuu; jpUkjp \u;yp md;dG+uzp kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhuu; jpU gpujPg; jh!; MfpNahiu tprhuiz nra;J thf;F%yk; ngwg;gl;lJ kDjhuu; jpUkjp \u;yp md;dG+uzp vd;gtu; mspj;Js;s thf;F %yj;jpy; 04.05.2022-Mk; Njjp ngw;Nwhu; kw;Wk; KjpNahu; guhkupg;Gr; rl;lj;jpd; fPo; md;dhuJ kfd; gpujPg; jh]; vd;gtiu vjpu;kDjhuuhf Nru;j;J tUtha; Nfhl;lhl;rpauplk; mspf;fg;gl;l kDtpid jhd; mspf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;> jdf;Fj; njupahky; ,isa kfd; n[a;jpg; rhKNty vd;gtu; jdJ ifnaOj;ij ,l;L kD mspj;Js;sjhfTk;> jhd; Mtz vz; 1157/2012 nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzj;ij uj;J nra;a Nfl;Lf; nfhs;sTk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; njuptpj;Js;shu;. vjpu;kDjhuu; jpU gpujPg; jh]; vd;gtu; kDjhuuhy; mspf;fg;gl;l kDtpy; njuptpj;Js;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis kWj;Jk; nrw;wpy;nkz;l; Mtz vz; 1157/2012-id uj;J nra;af;$lhJ vd;Wk; njuptpj;Js;shu;. ,jd; %yk;
kDjhuu; ,e;j Gfhu; kDtpid jd; rk;kjj;Jld;
mspf;ftpy;iy vd;gJk;> kDjhuUf;Fk; vjpu;kDjhuuhd
jpU.gpujPg;jh]; vd;gtUf;Fk; vt;tpj gpur;ridNah> fUj;J NtWghNlh ,y;iy vdTk; njupa tUfpwJ. vdNt 04.05.2022 md;W jpUkjp.n\u;yp md;dG+uzp vd;gtuhy;
nfhLf;fg;gl;l ,g;Gfhu; kDtpid epuhfupj;J Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
4. Now, the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent to take action against the fifth respondent, who, according to the petitioner, has forcibly entered into the property, which was earlier settled in favour of the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 petitioner’s first son, namely, Pradeep Dhass, wherein the petitioner has retained life interest in the property.
5. Today, the learned counsel for the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner on 21.04.2025, an enquiry was completed, wherein the complaint by the petitioner was closed. Relevant portion of the statement of the fifth respondent reads as under:
“7) tprhuiz KbT kDjhuupd; Gfhu; kD rk;ke;jkhf tprhuizf;F kDjhhu; kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhuu; M$u; vjpu;kDjhuu; jdJ thf;F%yj;jpy; jdJ jhahuhd kDjhuuplk; ,dpNky; ve;j gpur;rizAk; nra;a khl;Nld; vdTk; kPWk; gl;rj;jpy; rl;lgb eltbf;if vLf;fyhk; vd njuptpj;Js;shu;. NkYk; kDjhu; vjpu;kDjhuu; ,dpNky; jd;dplk; gpur;rid nra;a khl;Nld; vd njuptpj;jjd; Ngupy; ,e;j xU Kiw kl;Lk; vr;rupj;J mDg;GkhW Nfl;L nfhz;ljd; Ngupy; vjpu;kDjhuiu vr;rupj;J kD tprhuiz Kbf;fg;gl;lJ.”
6. The rights of the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has been now clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2, wherein it has been held as under:
“18. Keeping in mind the beneficial intention of the statute and the above expositions, we now proceed to consider the issue at hand.
19. Section 23 of the Act reads:
23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.
20. In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr.10, this Court refused to grant the benefit of Section 23 in the absence of an averment that the transfer in question was subject to a condition for maintenance of the parents. It was observed:
“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub- section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied)
21. Furthermore, in Sudesh (supra) for attracting the application of Section 23(1), the following essentials were expounded:
(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.
22. Adverting to the facts at hand, we find that there are two documents on record. One, a promissory note dated 07.09.2019 which records that the promisor (Respondent) shall serve the Appellant and her husband till the end of their life, and in the absence of him fulfilling such obligation, the subsequent deed can be taken back by the Appellant. Second, the Gift Deed dated 07.09.2019 also records a similar condition, i.e. the donee maintains the donor, and the former makes all necessary provisions for the peaceful life of the Appellant-donor. Both these documents were signed simultaneously.
23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-being of 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025 the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation.
24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.
25. Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is Section 23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.
26. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order with the particulars as described in paragraph one of this judgment, is set aside. Consequently, the Gift Deed dated 07.09.2019 is quashed. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the Appeal is allowed. Possession of the premises shall be restored to the Appellant by 28.02.2025.
27. The Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh who shall ensure compliance. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
7. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the second respondent to pass a fresh order as per Rule 21(i) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, after due notice to the fifth respondent, keeping note of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit’s case (cited supra) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 23.06.2025
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Sub Inspector of Police,
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
Vadasery Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
W.P.(MD) No.16897 of 2025
23.06.2025
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:55:00 pm )