Madras High Court
M.Vasanthi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer / on 12 November, 2025
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.15807, 19253 of 2021 &
4318 of 2024
W.P(MD)No.18989 of 2021 :
M.Vasanthi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer /
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
RDO Office, Old Collector Office,
Trichy-620 001.
2.M.M.Nagarajah Pillai .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st
respondent in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
respondent in Na.Ka.Aa.No.1/1649/2020 dated 09.08.2021 and quash the
same.
_________
Page 1 of 55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vigneshwaran
for M/s.V.Nirmala Rani
For R1 : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthugethayan
W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 :
M.Vasanthi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Trichy, (Acting as the Appellate Tribunal under
Central Act 56/2007),
Collector Office, Raja Colony,
Trichy – 620 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Old Collector Office,
Trichy-620 001.
3.M.M.Nagarajah Pillai .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.G1/31377/2021 dated 09.12.2021 and quash the same.
_________
Page 2 of 55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vigneshwaran
for M/s.V.Nirmala Rani
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthugethayan
W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 :
M.M.Nagarajah Pillai .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer /
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Old Collector Office,
Trichy-620 001.
3.M.Vasanthi
4.Rajeevi Ar.Murali
5.Sodasi Ar.Murali .. Respondents
(R4 and R5 are impleaded vide Court order, dated 23.09.2025 in
W.M.P(MD)No.20536 of 2025)
_________
Page 3 of 55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.Ji 1/31377/2021 dated
09.12.2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthugethayan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.R.Vigneshwaran
for M/s.V.Nirmala Rani
COMMON ORDER
The above writ petitions arise out of proceedings initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as the Act).
2. The original proceeding was initiated by the 3rd respondent in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021& 2nd respondent in W.P(MD)No.18989 of 2021 who is none else than the father-in-law of the petitioner in these writ petitions. The 3rd respondent in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 has filed W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 challenging the very same proceedings. Since _________ Page 4 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 the facts and issue involved is common in all these writ petitions, they are dealt with jointly and a common order is being passed. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021. Facts of the case :
3. The 3rd respondent had invoked the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by filing an application before the 2 nd respondent. It was his contention that on 01.10.1979 there was a partition between him, his father and brothers and thereafter, he had out of his own earning, started a business in the name and style of “M.Muniyapillai Grocery and Native Medicine Shop” at Big Bazaar Street, Trichy nearly 40 years back. He had also started the Muniyapillai Departmental Store in the year 2001 at Thillai Nagar, Trichy. Out of the income earned from these businesses, he had purchased properties both movable and immovable in his name and in the name of his son, N.Muralidharan.
4. It was his further contention that he had given his son, Muralidharan a good education spending huge sums of money on him. After his son had obtained his MBA degree, he had joined him in his _________ Page 5 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 business. However, his son did not evince much interest in the business, but had taken several lakhs of rupees from the 3rd respondent stating that he desired to start a Travel Agency. That apart, he would contend that he had spent huge sums of money to celebrate the wedding of his son with the petitioner herein. Further he had also spent considerable amount on medical expenses as the petitioner had not conceived for over four years after the marriage and even for the delivery, it was he who had borne the expenses.
5. In the year 2001, he and his wife had started the partnership business of M.Muniyapillai Departmental Store. The 3rd respondent would also accuse the petitioner of not taking care of his son properly. He would submit that at the behest of the petitioner, he had given a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to his son and the petitioner for them to start their Travel business.
6. In the course of carrying on this business at Chennai, in the name and style of Amaze Tours and Travels, the petitioner and her _________ Page 6 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 husband had to face some criminal complaints and it was the 3rd respondent who had bailed them out by spending over a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs, at the request of the petitioner.
7. Thereafter, his son and his family had shifted to Trichy and requested financial assistance for running their business. Once again the 3rd respondent had given a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs to start their business “Amaze Tours and Travels” at Trichy. The 3rd respondent would further contend that in the year 2006, his wife and he had to travel to America to attend to their daughter who had delivered a baby. The 3rd respondent had to leave the management of his various businesses in the hands of his son Muralidharan and his nephew, Sandeep Kumar. However, within six months, his son and daughter-in-law had managed to accumulate losses in the business. The 3rd respondent had to therefore return and take over the business and by his sheer hard work, had turned the tide by the year 2013. Out of the income earned, the 3rd respondent after demolishing the old building at Door No.25, Big Bazaar Street, had constructed a multistoried building. It is also the case of the 3rd respondent that both his _________ Page 7 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 son and the petitioner herein were in the habit of spending lavishly. They had in fact sold away properties without the knowledge of the 3rd respondent and squandered the money.
8. While so, in the year 2015, his son and daughter-in-law assured him that they had turned a new leaf and requested the 3rd respondent to help them financially as a last chance. At that point in time, his daughter had got a divorce and was alone in America and the 3rd respondent and his wife had to travel to America to be with her. In these circumstances, the petitioner had executed two settlement deeds in favour of his son in respect of two of his properties bearing Door Nos.307 and 308. These documents were executed primarily on the promise of his son that he will take care of the 3rd respondent and his wife. The 3rd respondent would submit that the loss caused to his business by his son earlier was completely discharged by the 3rd respondent from out of the sale proceeds of his property bearing Door No.250, Big Bazaar Street. _________ Page 8 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
9. The 3rd respondent would further submit that he had left for America once again and returned to India in the year 2018. At this juncture, his wife was diagnosed with cancer and the 3rd respondent was busy taking her back and forth for treatment. He had entrusted his shop at Thillai Nagar to his brother-in-law's son Sandeep Kumar. In respect of this shop, the 3rd respondent and his son entered into a partnership deed on 24.09.2013 and as per the terms of the deed on the death of one of the partners, the other partner would continue the business. However, taking advantage of the 3rd respondent's absence from India, the petitioner had, without the 3rd respondent's consent, entered the shop, sold out stock worth several rupees and started a business in the name and style of M.Muniyampillai Store at Amma Mandapam Road, Srirangam, Trichy. This shop is being managed by the petitioner's parents and the products in that shop were the ones transported from the Thillai Nagar shop. While the 3rd respondent was enquiring about the transfer / transaction, his son had died under suspicious circumstances. _________ Page 9 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
10. The petitioner has usurped the properties of the 3rd respondent which he had purchased / started from out of his self earning. The settlement deeds had been got executed by practising fraud and undue influence on the promise that the 3rd respondent and his wife would be taken care of by their son, the petitioner's husband.
11. The other two shops which had not being settled on the petitioner's husband have been unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner and her parents. The petitioner who is a novice to the business had caused a huge loss. Not stopping with this, the petitioner has instituted a false complaint against the 3rd respondent as partner of the business at Thillai Nagar as also his relatives and with the help of this complaint, has forcibly taken the key in respect of the business.
12. Stating that he has been forcibly evicted from the premises and that the settlement deeds had been got executed only on the promise of the petitioner and her husband, the son of the 3rd respondent that they would take care of the 3rd respondent and his wife, which assurance has _________ Page 10 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 been observed in the breach, the 3rd respondent had filed the petition before the 2nd respondent.
13. The counter to this petition by the petitioner in a nutshell are as follows:
Apat from denying the various incidents set out in the petition, the petitioner would contend that the petition is only an attempt to somehow evict the petitioner and her children from the properties to wreck vengeance. This was on account of the fact that the relationship between the 3rd respondent and his son, the petitioner's husband was far from cordial. The petitioner would also question the competence of the 2nd respondent to decide the petition as the petitioner would not come within the ambit of the Act as she was neither a relative nor a child as defined under the Act. She would further contend that the settlement deeds were unconditional and therefore, the same cannot be cancelled in the light of the language of Section 23 (1) of the Act. She would therefore pray for the dismissal of the petition.
_________ Page 11 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
14. The 2nd respondent by order dated 09.08.2021 in Na.K.A1/1649/2020 had passed the following order :
“1. kDjhuu;> jdJ kfd; KuspjuDf;F jhdnrl;by;nkz;l; %yk; nfhLj;j fil vz;: 307 kw;Wk; 308 Mfpa nrhj;Jfis vjpu;kDjhuu; mDgtpj;J jw;NghJs;s ngaupNyNa fil elj;jp tUtij kDjhuu;
cupik NfhuNth> jil nra;aNth $lhJ.
2. jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp ngupa filtPjp fjT vz;:306 kw;Wk; 309 Mfpa nrhj;Jf;fis vjpu;kDjhuu;> kDjhuu; trk; 30 ehl;fSf;Fs; xg;gilf;f Ntz;Lk;. jtwpdhy;> jhdnrl;by;nkz;l; uj;J njhlu;ghf kWguprPyidf;F vLj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLk;.
3. jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp tisay;fhuj;njU fjT vz;:71 nrhj;jpid nghWj;j kl;by;> vt;tpj tpy;yq;fkpd;wp vjpu;kDjhuu; mDgtpj;J tUtjw;F kDjhuu; vt;tpjkhd jilAk; nra;af; $lhJ.
4. jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp efuk;> jpy;iyefupy;> thlif ,lj;jpy; fil elj;jg;gl;L tUtjhYk;> fl;bl cupikahsu;kPJ jw;NghJ fil elj;jp tUk; jpUkjp.tre;jp _________ Page 12 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 MfpNahUf;fpilNa thlif fl;Lg;gl;L rl;lj;jpd;fPo; jhf;fy; nra;j tof;F ,t;tYtyf m1 / 2055 / 2020-d;gb epYit cs;sjhy;> Nkw;gb nrhj;J ,e;j tof;fpy;
ftug;glhJ. ,jpy; kDjhuUf;F vt;tpj cupikAk; ,y;iy.
5. kDjhuu; kw;Wk; vjpu;kDjhuu; MfpNahu; ,dp tUq;fhyq;fspy; VjhtJ nrhj;Jf;fis guhjPdk; nra;jhy;> mjpy; rl;lg;gb mtutu;fSf;F NruNtz;ba ghfj;ijf; nfhLj;J nrl;by;nkz;l; nra;J nfhs;s Ntz;baJ.”
15. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing W.P(MD)No.18989 of 2021. The 3rd respondent had challenged the said order by filing a revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by his order dated 09.12.2021 in Na.Ka.Ji.No.1/31377/2021 dismissed the revision filed by the 3rd respondent thereby confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 and the 3rd respondent has filed W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022. The 3rd respondent has challenged that portion of the order rejecting his prayer for cancelling the two settlement deeds and this petitioner has challenged the order directing her to hand over _________ Page 13 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 possession of Door Nos.306 and 309, Big Bazaar Street, Trichy.
16. Submissions :
The matter was argued at length orally and parties have also submitted written arguments and judgments. The written submissions are extracted briefly herein below:
16.1 Submissions of the petitioner :
(a) These submissions are made in the form of points for consideration and dates and events. The dates and events pleaded by the petitioner as follows:
16.09.2013 : Two settlement deeds executed and registered by the 3rd respondent in favour of his son, N.Muralidharan in respect of Shop No.307 & 308, Big Chetty Street, Trichy.
16.09.2013 : Registered Will executed by 3rd respondent in favour of his son N.Muralidharan in respect of Shop Nos.306 and 309, Big Chetty Street, Trichy.
November 2013 – May 2019 : The 3rd respondent and his wife left _________ Page 14 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 for the U.S leaving the shops with debts / loans due to third parties. These liabilities cleared by the petitioner and her husband.
04.12.2019 : N.Muralidharan dies leaving behind the petitioner and three children, out of whom, two were minors.
18.12.2019 : Paper publication by the 3rd respondent informing the general public that he would not be made liable for any loan taken /by his son for the business.
10.01.2020 & 29.01.2020 : Legal notice issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and her children withdrawing permission to hold Shop Nos.306 & 309 and to hand over vacant possession of the same.
13.02.2020 : Reply by the petitioner stating that her husband had an equal right in the two shops as it is a joint family property.
16.03.2020 : O.S.No.256 of 2020 filed by the petitioner for a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from interfering with the business carried on by them in Shop Nos.306 & 309.
19.03.2020 : Petition filed under the Act by the 3rd respondent. 20.11.2020 : Objection filed by the petitioner to this petition. _________ Page 15 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 Suit in O.S.No.366 of 2021 filed by the petitioner and her children on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Trichy for partition.
(b) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the following points arise for consideration in these proceedings :
(i) Whether the relief claimed under the Act by the 3rd respondent was maintainable before the 2nd respondent?
(ii) Whether the definition of children as set out in Section 2 (a) of the Act would include a daughter-in-law?
(iii) Whether the 1st respondent has exercise of his power properly while ordering the petitioner to hand over possession of Shop Nos.306 & 309 which are the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.256 of 2020 pending on the file of the 3rd Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy?
(c) The petitioner would advance the arguments by referring to the objects of the Act, definition of the word 'maintenance' in Section 2 (b), the scope of an appeal under Section 4 vis-a-vis a senior citizen, the duty imposed on the Tribunal under this Act under Section 5 and the jurisdiction enforced on the Tribunal under Section 23 of this Act.
_________ Page 16 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
(d) It is the further argument that besides the petitioner's husband, the 3rd respondent also has a daughter and therefore, the petition filed under this Act before the 2nd respondent has to fail for the reason that the 3rd respondent has a surviving legal heir, his daughter who is bound to take care of her parents who are senior citizens. Further even assuming that the 3rd respondent, a senior citizen had no children, then he has to be taken care of by a “relative” as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act and even then the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of this definition. That apart, the two settlement deeds which are sought to be cancelled do not contain any condition that the settlee, the 3rd respondent's son should take care of the 3rd respondent. In this context, attention was drawn to the judgment fo the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Others reported in 2025 (2) SCC 787, Subhashini Vs. District Collector & Others reported in 2020 (5) KLT 533 (Full Bench) and Karuppan Vs. The District Magistrate cum District Collector & Others in W.P.No.4540 of 2022.
(e) It is the further submission that the other reliefs claimed were _________ Page 17 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 alien to the scope of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The remedy of the 3rd respondent was only to approach the Civil Court. The order directing the petitioner to surrender possession of Shop Nos.306 & 309 exceeds the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Further a suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.256 of 2020 was already pending before the 3rd Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy.
(f) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the term 'children' as defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act does not include a daughter-in-law. The term encompasses son, daughter, grand- son and grand-daughter, but does not include a minor. Therefore, the very reading of the definition would clearly indicate that a daughter-in-law is outside the purview of the Act. Likewise, even under the definition of relative which is set out in Section 2 (g) of the Act, the term daughter-in- law is not included. The learned counsel would further submit that in the light of the above and in view of the settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and _________ Page 18 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 unambiguous, the present petition filed against the petitioner herein who is the daughter-in-law is not maintainable. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 1334 in Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & Others Vs. State of T.N. & Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the first and primary rule of construction is to decipher the intention of the legislation in the words used by the legislature. The Court cannot analyse the said provision as to what was supposed to be intended, but it has to consider what has been stated. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (5) SCC 515 in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., has been pressed in support of the argument that the legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Further, even assuming that there is a defect or an ommission in the words used by the legislature, the Courts cannot draw any aid to correct or make up the deficiency. In support of this argument, he has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1953 SC 148 in Nalinakhya Bysack Vs. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Others. Therefore, he would submit neither Section 2 (a) nor Section 2 (g) includes a daughter- _________ Page 19 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 in-law and therefore, the respondents have clearly committed a grave error in entertaining the petition and passing the impugned order.
(g) In support of the arguments that the term 'daughter-in-law' is not included in the definition of children or relative, the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in 2018 SCC Online Cal 16885 in Anand Kumar Agarwal & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 2017 (4) Raj LW 3353 in Rekha Kumari Jat Vs. Pushpa Devi.
(h) The learned counsel for the petitioner would also highlight the practical problems arising on account of this Act. He would submit that there is no form of rules to guide the adjudicatory process by the Tribunal, especially when the Act contemplates a summary enquiry in respect of applications filed under Section 23 of the Act. He would ultimately pray that this Court be pleased to allow the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and set aside the orders impugned therein and dismiss the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent.
_________ Page 20 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 16.2 (a) In the written submissions filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the 3rd respondent a senior citizen is aged about 79 years and he is a diabetic patient with several health ailments, further his wife who is 74 years old is suffering from breast cancer. The two senior citizens are unable to lead a life of dignity and also attend to their medical needs and they have also been kept out of the business which is their self acquired business. The petitioner who is in possession of the shops is refusing to hand over possession of the same. The 3rd respondent would submit that not only has the petitioner taken away the business being run in the 3rd respondent's own building, but also the one which is run in a rented premises at Thillai Nagar. The 3rd respondent would submit that the shops situate in Door Nos.307 and 308 are his separate properties by virtue of a Will as well as the purchase from his mother M.Pichai Ammal respectively. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the said properties situate in Door Nos.307 and 308 and it is in respect of these two properties that he has executed two settlement deeds _________ Page 21 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 in favour of his son on 16.09.2013.
(b) Likewise, shop nos.306 and 309 are also the self acquired properties of the 3rd respondent where the 3rd respondent's son was put in possession and after his demise, his wife, namely the petitioner herein had taken possession of the same. The 3rd respondent would submit that after he came down to India in 2018, he has not been taken care of by the petitioner or her husband, the 3rd respondent's son. Not only have they taken away the two shops by way of settlement deed, but have also occupied the two other shops. The 3rd respondent would further submit that despite an undertaking that she would pay the rents in respect of Shop Nos.306 and 309, the petitioner has failed to do so. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has invoked the provisions of the Act and filed filed an application before the 2nd respondent.
(c) The 3rd respondent would submit that after hearing the parties, the 2nd respondent had passed an order, dated 09.08.2021 directing the petitioner to surrender Shop Nos.306 & 309 to the petitioner within a _________ Page 22 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 period of 30 days, failing which, the settlement deeds dated 16.09.2013 would stand cancelled. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing W.P(MD)No.18989 of 2021. Challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent had preferred a revision before the 1st respondent which was dismissed confirming the order passed by the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent has filed W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 and aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent insofar as it confirms the order of the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to hand over possession of Door Nos.306 and 309, the petitioner has filed W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021.
(d) It is the argument of the learned senior counsel that the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to consider the intention and ambit of Section 23 of the Act. He would submit that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Others reported in 2025 (2) SCC 787, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider the provisions of Section 23 and they had held that under Section 23 of the Act, the possession of the property transferred _________ Page 23 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 could be ordered in favour of the senior citizen. He would submit that in the judgment reported in 2024 (14) SCC 225 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi & another, it is held that the provisions of the Act should also be considered in such a manner so as to not render the objects of the Act otiose.
17. Discussion :
(17.1) Before analysing the arguments put forward by either party, it is necessary to briefly set out the issues arising for consideration in this writ petition.
(i) Whether a ''daughter-in-law'' is amenable to the provisions of the Act considering the definition of ''children'' and ''relative'' provided under the Act?
(ii) Whether the objects of the Act should be defeated by giving a restrictive meaning to the definitions provided under the Act?
(iii) Whether the authorities under the Act have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 3rd respondent and grant him relief?
_________ Page 24 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022
(iv) Whether Sections 22 and 23 covered under Chapter V applies only in the cases of transfers to “children” / “relative” or covers any other 3rd party?
(17.2) The above issues therefore necessitate a perusal of the provisions of the Act.
Definitions :
(i) Section 2 (a) defines ''Children'' as follows :
(a) "children" includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor;
(ii) Section 2 (d) defines a parent as follows :
(d) "parent" means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen;
(iii) Section 2 (g) defines ''relative'' as follows :
(g) "relative" means any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death;
(iv) Section 2 (h) defines a ''senior citizen'' as follows :
h. "senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of _________ Page 25 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above;
Scheme of the Act and its structuring :
The Act is divided into 7 chapters which in turn consists of various sections as detailed below:
Chapter I - Preliminary covers Sections 1 to 3 Chapter II – Maintenance of parents and senior citizens covers Sections 4 to 18 Chapter III – Establishment of oldage homes consists of Section 19 Chapter IV – Provisions for medical care of senior citizens is covered in Section 20 Chapter V – Protection of life and property of senior citizens covers Sections 21 to 23 Chapter VI – Offences and procedure for trial covers Sections 24 and 25 Chapter VII – Miscellaneous consists of Sections 26 to 32 The scheme of the various Act as contained in the Act and relevant to the case on hand is briefly set out herein below. _________ Page 26 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 (17.3) Section 4 talks about maintenance of parents and senior citizens. This Section provides that where a senior citizen including a parent, is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property, he can make an application under Section 5 of the Act claiming maintenance as provided in Section 4. In case of a parent, such application can be made against one or more of his children, however, with a rider that such an application cannot be made against a minor child. In the case of a senior citizen, such an application can be made against a relative as defined in Section 2 (g). Section 5 talks about who could make an application under this Act. This Section states that any parent or senior citizen can file the application contemplated under Section 4 of this Act. The Act further provides that where a senior citizen is incapable by himself to make the application, he can authorise any other person or an organisation to file the application on his behalf. The Act also confers a right on a Tribunal to suo motu take cognizance if a senior citizen is unable to take care of himself. Section 8 of the Act contemplates a summary enquiry subject to the rules prescribed by the _________ Page 27 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 State Government. In this regard, the Tribunal is vested with the same powers as a Civil Court for taking evidence, enforcing attendance of witnesses and for compelling discovery and production of documents and material objects. Section 11 talks of enforcement of order of maintenance. Section 15 talks about the Appellate Tribunal. Section 22 directs the State Government to confer such powers and impose duties on a District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the Act are complied with. Section 23 of the Act stipulates that where a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act has transferred his property by way of gift or otherwise with a condition that the transferee should provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, and if the transferee fails to fulfill this condition, then the transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud / coercion / undue influence. In such a case, the transfer can be declared void by the Tribunal. Section 23 (2) provides that where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and this estate or a part thereof is transferred, then the transferee is bound to maintain the senior citizen and the right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee who is aware of such a right or where _________ Page 28 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 such transfer is gratuitous. From a reading of the scheme and structuring of the Act as set out hereinabove, it is seen that only Chapter II refers to the words 'parent, children and relative'. This chapter contemplates the maintenance of a parent/senior citizen, Chapter IV which deals with medical care and Chapter V which deals with protection of life and property refers only to a senior citizen as defined in Section 2(h). Objects of the Act:
(17.4) Having discussed the various provisions of the Act, relevant for the discussion on hand, it would be relevant to briefly touch upon the statements and objects of the Act. The Act seeks to provide an effective provision for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens which is guaranteed and recognised under the constitution. The Act seeks to impose an obligation on the persons inheriting the property of their aged relatives to maintain them, to make provisions for setting up oldage homes for providing maintenance to indigent older persons and provide better medical facilities to the senior citizens and to protect their life and property.
_________ Page 29 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 Relief sought for cancellation of the settlement deeds:
(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. _________ Page 30 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 Such a right can be enforced only in a case where a transfer is gratuitous, but not in 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; and _________ Page 31 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.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.” (17.6) This was followed in a later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 (2) SCC 787 in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Others. That was a case where a gift deed contained a condition that the donee would maintain the donor. In addition to the gift deed, there was also a Vachan Patra (a letter of promise) reiterating the same and stating that the donor would be taken care of by the donee till the death of the donor. The learned Judges after considering the provisions of Section 23 observed that since twin essentials which had been set out in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi & another were attracted, the gift deed deserved to be quashed.
(17.7) In the case on hand, the two settlement deeds executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of his son were made out of love and affection and there was no condition reserved to taking care of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the claim of the 3rd respondent seeking cancellation of the two settlement deeds which have been rejected by the authorities has to be confirmed.
_________ Page 32 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 Relief sought by senior citizen for putting him back in possession of the property:
(17.8) The complainant had also sought to have the possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309 restored to him as he has been dispossessed from the same and it has been unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner and her parents and which were not settled by the 3rd respondent upon his son or his grand-children. This relief has been granted by the authorities below and it is challenging the same that the petitioner has filed the two writ petitions, W.P(MD)Nos.18989 and 22793 of 2021. The primary defense that has been taken by the petitioner is that she being a daughter-
in-law is not amenable to the provisions of the Act as the definition of both children as well as relative does not include a daughter-in-law.
Therefore, the very petition has to be rejected. It is also her contention that the petitioner and her children have filed a suit for partition in respect of these two shops as the said property is a joint family property in which her husband had a right as also her children.
_________ Page 33 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 (17.9) It is not in dispute that the two shops were originally being run by the 3rd respondent and it is only when he was constrained to go to the U.S that the petitioner's husband along with his cousin were running the business on behalf of the 3rd respondent. After the demise of the 3rd respondent's son, the petitioner and her parents are stated to have taken control of the business. The petition filed by the 3rd respondent sets out various losses that the petitioner and her husband had caused and how the 3rd respondent had stepped in every time to bail out the petitioner and her husband. For this purpose, huge sums of money appear to have been given to the petitioner and her husband. It also appears that the 3rd respondent is now left without the business and consequently finding it difficult to maintain himself and his sick wife. It has also been stated that the petitioner through the police has forcibly taken back possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309 after lodging a police complaint. While considering the defense taken by the petitioner that as a daughter-in-law, she is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, it would make useful reading to refer to the Bill that has now been tabled in _________ Page 34 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 the parliament called the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill, 2019. This Bill expands the definition of the word 'children' to read as follows :
(a) “children”, in relation to a parent or a senior citizen, means his son or daughter, whether biological, adoptive or step-child and includes his son-in-law, daughter-
in-law, grandson, grand-daughter and the legal guardian of minor children, if any;
(17.10) The definition of the word”'maintenance” and “parent” have also undergone a change. They are amended as follows :
“(b) “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing, housing, safety and security, medical attendance, healthcare and treatment necessary to lead a life of dignity;
(d) “parent” means father or mother, whether biological, adoptive or step-parent and includes father-in-law, mother-in-
law and grandparents, whether or not a senior citizen;” (17.11) Section 22 (2) has also undergone an amendment in place of which the following sub-sections have been inserted :
“(2) In every police station, at least one officer, not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector possessing aptitude, _________ Page 35 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 appropriate training and orientation shall be designated as the Nodal Officer for senior citizens to deal with issues relating to parents and senior citizens.
(3) The State Government shall constitute a Special Police Unit for senior citizens in each district to co-ordinate the functions of police in respect of parents and senior citizens and such Unit shall be headed by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and consist of the Nodal Officers for senior citizens designated under sub-section (2) and two social workers having experience of working in the field of senior citizens, of whom one shall preferably be a woman."
(17.12) In the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the above bill, Clause 3 would read as follows :
“3. After examining various provisions of the Act, the Group of Secretaries have made recommendations to extend all the benefits to senior citizens of uniform age, to enhance maintenance amount for senior citizens and standardisation of homecare services. Besides, petitions and representations have been received from individuals and institutions requesting to make certain modifications in the Act, including to bring daughter-in- law and son-in-law within the ambit of the definition of 'children', _________ Page 36 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 to provide punishment for abuse of parents and senior citizens. It is therefore, decided to revise various provisions of the said Act and to incorporate new provisions therein to make the Act more comprehensive and helpful to the greying population.” (17.13) It is therefore clear that the legislature in its wisdom has realized the pitfalls in the earlier Act and is now seeking to rectify the same by including relatives by marriage also within the definition of the term “children” and “parent”. No doubt the same is yet to become an Act.
However, reference is being made to the Bill only for the purpose of highlighting the fact that as far as the provisions of the Act covering children and parent, relatives by marriage are also now sought to be included thereby giving effect to the true meaning of the word “relative”.
(17.14) In these circumstances, let us now examine the relief claimed by the 3rd respondent for putting him back in possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309. The properties in respect of which the authorities have directed the petitioner to hand over possession are not the properties _________ Page 37 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 which are the subject matter of the settlement deeds. These are two shops bearing Shop Nos.306 and 309 which were admittedly started and being run by the 3rd respondent. It appears that these properties were purchased by the 3rd respondent from out of his self-earnings. This is evident from a reading of the registered Will dated 16.09.2013 executed by the 3rd respondent and which has been produced on the side of the petitioner.
The will contains the following recitals:
“Nkw;gb nrhj;ij vd;Dila Ra
tUthiaf;nfhz;L thq;fpa nrhj;jhFk;. Nkw;fz;l
gpufhuk; vdf;F nrhe;jkhdJk;> ghj;jpag;gl;lJkhd
nrhj;ij ehd; ru;t Rje;jpu ghj;jpaq;fSld; ,d;Wtiu Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; nfhz;L te;J> vd; ngaupy; ru;f;fhu; tup tifawhf;fis nrYj;jpf;nfhz;Lk;> ru;t Rje;jpu ghj;jpaq;fSld; Mz;L mDgtpj;Jf; nfhz;Lk;
tUfpNwd;.” (17.15) Further even the two settlement deeds would describe the properties therein as the self-acquired properties of the 3rd respondent.
That apart, in the counter to the petition filed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had consented to pay a rent at market rate in respect of Shop Nos.306 and 309 thereby recognizing the right of 3rd respondent to these _________ Page 38 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 properties. Therefore, from these documents, the right of the 3rd respondent to the properties in question stands prima facie proved.
(17.16) It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and her parents have taken over the business and are in possession of the same to the exclusion of the 3rd respondent and his wife. The income from the shops are the only source of income for the senior citizen which source has now been cut off on account of the conduct of the petitioner. The senior citizen has been deprived of the property, the income from which was his source to maintain himself and his wife.
(17.17) The following conduct of the petitioner speaks volumes about her intent not to maintain the senior citizens though the properties and businesses now in her possession.
(i) The petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent has another child, a daughter, besides the petitioner's late husband and she is bound to maintain her parents and therefore, the petitioner has no responsibility.
(ii) Reneging on the undertaking to pay rent in respect of _________ Page 39 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 Shop Nos.306 and 309 and filing a suit for partition.
(iii) By taking a defense that the Act would not apply to her and refusing to maintain the senior citizens.
(17.18) The defense taken by the petitioner that the petition filed by the 3rd respondent is not maintainable in the light of the language of the Act, particularly with reference to the definitions pales into insignificance considering the fact that the major grand children have now been inpleaded and they who fall within the definition of the term “children” have not filed any defense to the 3rd respondent's petition.
(17.19) The object of the Act is to protect the life and properties of the senior citizens and by giving a restrictive meaning these objects cannot be rendered otiose. The term “relative” as defined in the Act means a legal heir of the children of a childless senior citizen who would inherit the property of the senior citizens. By reason of the death of her husband, the petitioner is entitled to a share in the property/estate of the 3rd respondent along with her children on the death of the 3rd respondent _________ Page 40 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. No doubt the definition deals with a “childless senior citizen”. The term relative is one as defined in P.Ramanadhan Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon to include any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. Therefore, to further objects of the Act, she would also fall within the definition of the term 'relative”. As already stated, respondents 4 and 5 in W.P(MD)No. 282 of 2022 are “children” as defined in Section 2(a). Therefore, the issues set out in Paragraph No.17 (i) to (iii) supra have to be answered in favour of the 3rd respondent by holding that the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 are amenable to the provisions of Section 2(a) and 2 (g) of the Act and therefore, the authorities under the Act has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The objects of the Act have to be given effect to and therefore, there cannot be a restrictive interpretation of the definition moreso taking into consideration on the fact that a Bill has been introduced to amend the Act.
(17.20) However, it is not necessary to dilate upon the terms _________ Page 41 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 “children” and “relative” as in the instant case, the relief claimed by the 3rd respondent falls within the ambit of Chapter V of the Act. As already set out, the Chapter which covers Section 23 does not refer to the term “children” or “relative”, but speaks of a “senior citizen” and transferee. Therefore, even on this ground, the argument that the Act will not apply is without basis.
(17.21) Having come to the conclusion that the petitioner and her children are amenable to the provisions of the Act, the next issue to be decided is issue (iv) whether the order of the authorities in directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309 is correct.
(17.22) In the reply to the petition filed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has stated as follows:
“ehd; jw;rkak; vdJ 3 Foe;ijfisAk; gbf;f itj;Jf;nfhz;L mtu;fis gukupf;fTk;> njhopy; uPjpahf epYitapYs;s fld;fis milf;fTk; ngupJk; Nghuhb tUk; #o;epiyapYk; ngupafiltPjpapy; cs;s fil vz;fs; 306 kw;Wk; 309 MfpaitfSf;Fz;lhd epaha _________ Page 42 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 thlifia ju ehd; jahuhf cs;Nsd;. kDjhuUk;> mtuJ kidtpAk; mt;thlifapid mtu;fsJ tho;f;ifg; nghUSjtpahf vLj;Jf;nfhs;syhk;. kDjhuu; kDtpy; NfhupAs;s kw;w gupfhuq;fs; ahTk; vd;id gop thq;f Ntz;Lnkd;w xNu Nehf;fj;jpy;
ngha;ahf ,k;kDit jhf;fy; nra;J fl;rp nra;J
tUfpwhu;.”
(17.23) Therefore, the petitioner had undertaken to pay the rent at market value to the 3rd respondent acknowledging his right to the said property. The petitioner has accepted the fact that the properties are the separate property of the 3rd respondent by not including the property subject matter of the two settlement deeds in the suit for partition. She also admits that between 10.03.2019 to 14.07.2019, the Thillai Nagar shop was being run by the 3rd respondent and on 15.07.2019 on her husband's instructions, she had taken over charge. Likewise it is also admitted that in 2013, when the 3rd respondent went to the U.S, the business at Shop Nos.306 and 309 was handed over to the petitioner's husband for managing the same. Therefore, there is a clear admission that the business prior to that was being run by the 3rd respondent. It is also the contention that the possession was forcibly taken by the police _________ Page 43 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 authorities from the 3rd respondent. The issue as to whether it is a joint family property / business or otherwise is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.366 of 2021 pending on the file of the District Court, Trichy.
(17.24) As stated earlier, one of the objects of the Act is to safeguard the life and properties of the senior citizens. The petitioner, who is enjoying the said property as a legal heir of her husband who in turn was placed in management of the business when the 3rd respondent had left for the U.S, has failed to hand over possession of the same on the return of the 3rd respondent. That apart, despite the undertaking to pay market rent in respect of the properties, the same is also observed in the breach.
(17.25) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Anand Kumar Agarwal & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal in 2018 SCC Online Cal 16885 in support of argument that a “daughter-in-law” is not included in the definition of “children” / “relative” and that the Tribunal had no authority to order eviction.
_________ Page 44 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 (17.26) I am unable to subscribe to the observations made therein for the following reasons :
(i) The petition now filed is for cancelling the settlement deed and for protection of the property of the 3rd respondent falling under Chapter V.
(ii) The business admittedly had been handed over to the petitioner's husband for managing the same when the 3rd respondent had gone to the U.S.
(iii) Even according to the petitioner, it was on 15.07.2019 that she was put in charge of the business by her late husband who had taken over the management from the 3rd respondent who was running the business at that point in time.
(iv) The major grand children who have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition have not filed any objections to the claim of the 3rd respondent.
(v) The object of the Act is to protect the property of the _________ Page 45 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 senior citizen.
(vi) Section 22 (1) of the Act only provides for authorities who should be conferred with the powers to properly carry out the provisions of the Act and Sub Section 2 enjoins the State to prescribe a comprehensive plan to provide protection of life and property of senior citizen. A reading of this section implies that the protection is against any 3rd party who endangers the life or who seeks to usurp the properties of the senior citizens and does not refer to children or relative.
(vii) Likewise, Section 23 does not contemplate a transfer only to a child or relative, but also encompasses a transfer to any 3rd party. The language of Section 23(1) states that by gift or otherwise. Section 23(2) further stipulates that where a senior citizen is entitled to maintenance out of the estate or a part thereof which has been transferred gratuitously, the right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee.
According to the petitioner herself, the business was being run as a partnership between her late husband and the 3rd _________ Page 46 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 respondent. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is entitled to a share of the income from the business which admittedly is the only source of income. By denying the income from the business and denying the 3rd respondent, the right to carry on the business at Shop Nos.306 and 309, the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 have clearly violated the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act. The petitioner cannot seek to avoid the obligation cast upon her by contending that she being the daughter-in-law is not amenable to the provisions of this Act as Chapter V does not speak of either “children” or “relative”, but only speaks of a “transferee by way of a gift or otherwise”. For the aforesaid reasons, I beg to differ with the observations of the learned Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in the case referred supra.
(17.27) Further the petitioner has also reneged on the commitment given by her in her objections to the petition filed by the 3 rd respondent under the Act.
_________ Page 47 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 (17.28) In view of the above factors, the 3rd respondent, the senior citizen is entitled to be put back in possession of his property. This Court also draws strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil)No.7675 of 2024 in Rajeswar Prasad Roy Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the power of the Tribunal authorised under the Act with regard to granting orders of eviction. The learned Judges observed as follows :
10. As far as the authority of Tribunal under the Act to order eviction is concerned, this court in S.Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban Disincr & Ors4, specifically held that the Tribunal under the Act has the authority to order eviction to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizens. This case involved a similar challenge to the order of eviction by daughter-in-
law. The relevant paragraph (Para 25) from the case is extracted below:
"25. The substance of sub-section (2) of Section 23, as submitted by the second and third respondents, is that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass an order directing the eviction of the appellant who is their daughter- in-law. According to the submission, the power 4 (2021) 15 SCC 730 _________ Page 48 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 to order eviction is implicit in the provision guaranteeing a "right to receive maintenance out of an estate" and the enforcement of that right. In supporting the submission, they have referred to the view which has been taken by several High Courts, indicating that the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in other words would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute. It is necessary to recapitulate that the situation in the present case is that the eviction was sought of the daughter- in-law i.e. the appellant. The land, where the house has been constructed, was originally purchased by the son of the applicants who are seeking eviction of their daughter-in-law. The son had purchased the property a few months before his marriage to the appellant. He had subsequently transferred the property by a registered sale deed to his father and the fact that it was for the same consideration after the lapse of several years is of significance. The father, in turn, executed a gift deed in favour of his spouse. The appellant has asserted that she had been living in the house, as her matrimonial residence, until the application was filed. Her spouse has (according to her) deserted her and their minor daughter and left them in the lurch. _________ Page 49 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 The electricity to the premises was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Their daughter has sought admission to an engineering degree course however her father, fourth respondent has not provided any financial support. The transfers which took place cannot be viewed in isolation from the context of the ongoing matrimonial dispute which has taken place. The issue is whether the appellant as the daughter-in-law and the minor daughter could have been ousted in the above manner.
11. Furthermore, the counsels for Appellant have rightly pointed out Rule 21 (2) (i) of the Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 which specifically provides that it is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. The present Appellant is 75 year old. It shall be a defeat of the purpose of the Act if Appellant is not granted the benefit of eviction against his son and daughter-in-law who have not only encroached his self-acquired property but also threatened him of false criminal complaints, abusing and creating hurdles in running of the Rest House and thereby causing mental and physical harassments to old parents.
12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Impugned order of the Division Bench dated 03.01.2024 is set aside _________ Page 50 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 and that of the Maintenance Tribunal dated 16.04.2022 is restored. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant time till 31st May, 2025 to respondents (8 and 9) to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the appellant.” The dicta laid down in the above judgment applies on all fours to the case on hand and issue (iv) is also answered in favour of the 3rd respondent.
18. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed and petitioner in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 and her children, namely respondents 4 and 5 in W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 shall vacate and hand over possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309 within a period of one month from today. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg _________ Page 51 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 To
1.The District Collector, Trichy, (Acting as the Appellate Tribunal under Central Act 56/2007), Collector Office, Raja Colony, Trichy – 620 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Old Collector Office, Trichy-620 001.
_________ Page 52 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 P.T.ASHA, J.
gbg W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 12.11.2025 _________ Page 53 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.15807, 19253 of 2021 & 4318 of 2024 P.T.ASHA, J.
After the orders were pronounced, the death of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022, 2nd respondent in W.P(MD)No.18989 of 2021 and 3rd respondent in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 has been reported vide memo, dated 12.11.2025. Since the deceased M.M.Nagarajah Pillai had filed a writ petition under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 both for himself and on behalf of his wife N.Manoramadevi, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.22793 of 2021 and her children, namely respondents 4 and 5 in W.P(MD)No.282 of 2022 shall vacate and hand over possession of Shop Nos.306 and 309 to N.Manoramadevi, within a period of one month from today.
12.11.2025 gbg _________ Page 54 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am ) W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 P.T.ASHA, J.
gbg W.P.(MD) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 & 282 of 2022 12.11.2025 _________ Page 55 of 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 11:01:31 am )