Madras High Court
T.Pandiselvi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum on 14 August, 2025
Author: C. Saravanan
Bench: C. Saravanan
2025:MHC:2038
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 06.08.2025
Pronounced on 14.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23166 & 23167 of 2023
T.Pandiselvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum
Executive Magistrate,
The Authority under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
Usilampatti, Madurai.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Elumalai, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Elumalai Police Station, Madurai.
5.The Tahsildar,
Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai.
6.K.Dhanushkodi
7.D.Veyilmuthu ... Respondents
____________
Page No. 1 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order of the first respondent in P.Mu.No.1265/2023/A4
dated 25.10.2023 and quashing the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udhyakumar
For R1, R2 & R5 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 & R4 : Mr.Vaikam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R6 & R7 : Mr.K.Gurunathan
for Mr.R.Selvam
ORDER
The Petitioner is before this Court challenging the Order dated
25.10.2023, bearing reference P.Mu.No.1265/2023/A4 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by the 1st Respondent in a
petition filed by the 6th and 7th Respondents under Section 5 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2. By the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2023, the 1st Respondent has
ordered the cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015,
registered as Document No.1745 of 2015. By the aforesaid Settlement
Deed dated 30.11.2015, the 6th Respondent, K.Dhanushkodi had settled
____________
Page No. 2 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
the land measuring an extent of 1254 sq.ft. together with house in favour
of the Petitioner. Operative portion of the Impugned Order dated
25.10.2023 reads as under:
“jPHg;Giu:
kDjhuu; jpU.jD~;Nfhb j/ng.fhrp (1)
vd;gtu; nrhirl;bapy; fzf;fhsuhf gzpGupe;J
Xa;T ngw;W jw;NghJ khj Xa;T+jpakhf Rkhu; &.
2>000/- ngw;W tUfpwhu; vd;gJ tprhuizapy; njupa
tUfpwJ. NkYk;> kDjhuu; jpU.jD~;Nfhb
j/ng.fhrp (1) vd;gtu; vjpu;kDjhuu;
jpUkjp.ghz;br;nry;tp f/ng.jq;fr;rhkp vd;gtUf;F
jhdkhf vOjp nfhLj;j NgiuA+u; tl;lk;>
ks;sg;Guk; fpuhkk;> gl;lh vz;: 2010> Gyvz;: 181/3-
y; fz;l nrhj;jpid cs;slf;fpa vOkiy
rhu;gjptf Mtz vz;: 1745/2015 ehs;: 30.11.2015-d;
gb &uy; `Trpq; igdhd;]; ypkpnll; %yk;
mlkhd flDf;fhf gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ
tpy;yq;fr;rhd;wpd; %yk; njupatUfpwJ. 2-Mk;
kDjhuu; ntapy;Kj;J ngaupYs;s tPl;by;
kDjhuu;fs; trpj;J tUtJ fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu;
tprhuiz %yk; njupa tUfpwJ. ,Ug;gpDk;
kDjhuu;fSf;F cupa kUj;Jt nryTfs; kw;Wk;
mbg;gilj; Njitfis G+u;j;jp nra;J nfhs;s
NghJkhd tho;thjhuKk; mtrpakhfpwJ.
vdNt> kDjhuu; jpU.jD~;Nfhb j/ng.fhrp
(1) vd;gtu; vjpu;kDjhuu; jpUkjp.ghz;br;nry;tp
vd;gtUf;F jhdnrl;by;nkz;lhf gjpT nra;J
nfhLj;j vOkiy fpuhk rhu;gjptf Mtz vz;:
1745/2015 vd;w vz;Zs;s jhdnrl;by;nkz;l;
gj;jpukhdJ uj;J nra;J ,jd; %yk;
Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.
NkYk; kDjhuu;fs; jpU.jD~;Nfhbkw;Wk;
jpUkjp.ntapy;Kj;J MfpNahu; tho;ehs; tiuapYk;
jw;NghJ FbapUf;Fk; tPl;by; trpj;J tuyhk;
vdTk;> kDjhuu;fs; jpU.jD~;Nfhb kw;Wk;
jpUkjp.ntapy;Kj;J MfpNahiu kdjstpy; kw;Wk;
clystpy; ,ilA+W nra;af; $lhJ vdTk; ,jd;
%yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
____________
Page No. 3 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
NgiuA+u; tl;lk;> vOkiy fhty; Ma;thsu;>
Nkw;gb cj;jutpd;gb mjid fz;fhzpj;J
thupRfs; %yk; ,t;Tj;jputpid epiwNtw;Wtij
cWjp nra;a ngw;Nwhu; kw;Wk; KjpNahu; guhkupg;G
rl;lk; tpjpfs; 23 kw;Wk; 22(2)-d; fPo; eltbf;if
Nkw;nfhs;s ,jd; %yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
Nkw;gb cj;jutpdhy; kDjhuUf;F
Ml;Nrgiz ,Ug;gjhf fUjpdhy;> ngw;Nwhu; kw;Wk;
%j;j Fbkf;fs; ghJfhg;G kw;Wk; ey;tho;T rl;lk;
2007-d; gpupT 15(1) d; gb khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytiu
jiytuhff; nfhz;l Nky;KiwaPl;L jPu;g;ghaj;jpw;F
,e;j cj;juT fpilf;fg;ngw;w 60 jpdq;fSf;Fs;
Nkw;gb rl;lg;gpupT 6(1)-d; gb ,e;j cj;juT
efYld; Nky;KiwaPL nra;J nfhs;syhk; vdj;
njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
3. The 1st Respondent, while canceling the aforesaid Settlement
Deed dated 30.11.2015, permitted the 6th and 7th Respondents herein to
reside in the house and further directed that they shall not be disturbed
physically or mentally during their lifetime. However, the Petitioner and
her husband have not been specifically asked to vacate the house that had
earlier been settled in favour of the Petitioner by the 6th Respondent vide
the aforesaid Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015.
4. A reading of the records indicate that the Petitioner Pandiselvi,
one Dhanalakshmi and Chellanpandi are the biological children of late
Periyasamy and late Nallakudi. Late Nallakudi is none other than the
sister of the 7th Respondent.
____________
Page No. 4 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
5. Late Periyasamy, the biological father of the
Petitioner/Pandiselvi, Dhanalakshmi and Chellanpandi, during his
lifetime, had purchased a property in Survey No.181/3, Mallapuram
Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District measuring an extent of 2151¾
square feet, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.2007.
6. Late Periyasamy, i.e., the biological father of the Petitioner
Pandiselvi, Dhanalakshmi and Chellanpandi, died on 09.01.2009. The
biological mother of the Petitioner/Pandiselvi, Dhanalakshmi and
Chellanpandi, late Nallakudi, who is the sister of the 7th Respondent, also
died on 17.08.2020.
7. The biological mother of the Petitioner/Pandiselvi, Dhanalakshmi
and Chellanpandi, late Nallakudi, executed a Sale Deed dated 10.07.2015
in favour of the 6th Respondent and conveyed an extent of 1254 square
feet out of 2151¾ square feet of land in Survey No.181/3, which had
earlier been purchased by late Periyasamy, the biological father of the
Petitioner/Pandiselvi, Dhanalakshmi and Chellanpandi, on 31.01.2007. It
appears that on the said land, the 6th Respondent K.Dhanushkodi had put
up a construction.
____________
Page No. 5 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
8. The 6th Respondent later settled the said property together with
the house in favor of the Petitioner vide Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015
registered as Document No.1745 of 2015, which has now been canceled
by the 1st Respondent vide the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2023.
9. It appears that at the time of execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed
dated 10.07.2015 in favor of the 6th Respondent, the Petitioner as well as
the Petitioner’s other siblings Dhanalakshmi and Chellapandi were
majors. However, they were not made as party to the aforesaid Sale Deed
dated 10.07.2015. Later, the Petitioner and her siblings namely
Dhanalakshmi and Chellapandi entered into a Rectification Deed dated
30.03.2017 and rectified the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 10.07.2015 stating
that the sale in favour of the 6th Respondent was valid. However, a copy of
the Rectification Deed dated 30.03.2017 has been filed before this Court.
At the same time, there is no dispute regarding execution of the
Rectification Deed dated 30.03.2017.
10. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the land together with
house was settled in favour of the Petitioner by the 6th Respondent on
____________
Page No. 6 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
30.11.2015, the Petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the State
Bank of India, Elumalai Branch. It is stated that the entire loan amount
of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by the Petitioner to the 6th Respondent to settle
the amount due in a surcharge proceedings against the 6th Respondent
after an order was passed by the Mallapuram Agricultural Co-operative
Societies. However, there are no such records before this Court.
11. However, a perusal of the records before this Court indicates
that the loan was actually obtained by the Petitioner on 31.05.2017 for a
sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred
by the Petitioner to the 6th Respondent on 03.06.2017, i.e., after three
days.
12. A further perusal of the records also indicate that a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- was also transferred to one Rathinam, the brother of
Thangasamy, the husband of the petitioner, on 03.06.2017. According to
the Petitioner, the said amount was transferred to Rathinam only for the
purpose of withdrawing the same and for handing it over to the 6th
Respondent in cash.
____________
Page No. 7 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
13. However, there is no reason forthcoming as to why the said
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was not transferred directly to the 6th Respondent
along with the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, even though both transactions
were made on the very same day.
14. That apart, it is the case of the Petitioner that from the above
amount of Rs.5,50,000/- [Rs.4,00,000 + Rs.1,50,000], the Petitioner had
given the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 6th Respondent in
cash. However, there are no records to substantiate the same.
15. In response to the above submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents submits
that it was only the Petitioner who was in urgent need of money and that
for that purpose, the Petitioner had pledged the Settlement Deed dated
30.11.2015 registered as Document No.1745/2015 and obtained the loan.
16. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- transferred by the Petitioner to
the 6th Respondent was nothing but for the discharge of the debt of the
____________
Page No. 8 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
Petitioner’s husband and it had no connection with the 6th Respondent and
that no surcharge proceeding was initiated against the 6th Respondent as
stated by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that except for the amount
of Rs.4,00,000/-, no other amount has been given to the 6th Respondent.
17. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the 6th Respondent
executed an unregistered Mortgage Deed dated 11.08.2017 for a sum of
Rs.10,67,000/- in favour of the Petitioner, undertaking to repay the said
amount by January 2018. However, the 6th Respondent has not paid any
amount. Instead, the 6th Respondent filed a petition on 24.03.2023 before
the 1st Respondent under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
18. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is not the
adopted daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondents. However, the 1st
espondent has come to an erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner is the
adopted daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondents and accordingly ordered
the cancellation of the Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015.
____________
Page No. 9 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
19. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
is not the adopted daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondents and that only the
Petitioner’s elder sister, namely Dhanalakshmi, is the adopted daughter of
the 6th and 7th Respondents vide Adoption Deed dated 15.07.1997
registered as Document No.11 of 1997. However, there are no records to
indicate that the Petitioner is the adopted daughter of the 6th and 7th
Respondents.
20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents
submits that the Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 clearly mentions that
the Petitioner is the daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondents and that only
out of love and affection, the property was settled in her favour.
21. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that from the Petitioner’s childhood, the 6th and 7th Respondents
brought her up as their younger daughter, providing her with food, shelter,
and education up to the 10th standard. It is further submitted that the
Petitioner fell in love and left home and that since there was a matrimonial
dispute in that marriage, the 6th and 7th Respondents supported the
Petitioner and assisted her in obtaining a divorce.
____________
Page No. 10 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
22. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that thereafter, the Petitioner married one Thangasamy and that
out of love and affection, at the time of the marriage, the 6 th and 7th
Respondents gifted 23 sovereigns of gold and household utensils worth
about Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further submitted that they secured employment
for the petitioner’s husband, namely, Thangasamy, as a mechanic with the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), Usilampatti, by
spending a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.
23. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that the signature in the unregistered Mortgage Deed dated
11.08.2017, which is said to have been executed by the 6th Respondent in
favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.10,67,000/-, is not that of the 6 th
Respondent.
24. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that the Petitioner is bound to maintain the 6th and 7th
Respondents as her parents and, therefore, they approached the authorities
under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007.
____________
Page No. 11 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
25. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents further
submits that the Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.741 of 2018 before the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, for permanent
injunction, which was dismissed for default on 11.12.2020, only with a
view to grab the property of the sixth and seventh respondents.
26. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015, executed by the 6th Respondent, is not
conditional and, therefore, no liability is cast upon the Petitioner or her
husband, Thangasamy, to maintain the 6th and 7th Respondents, namely
K.Dhanushkodi and D.Veyilmuthu.
27. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents
submits that, though no condition was imposed in the Settlement Deed
dated 30.11.2015, since the Petitioner is construed as the daughter of the
6th and 7th Respondents, she is automatically bound to maintain her
parents, i.e., the 6th and 7th Respondents, and cannot escape liability by
quoting certain judgments stating that there were no averments in the said
Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015.
____________
Page No. 12 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
DISCUSSION:-
28. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents, the learned Government Advocate for the 3rd
and 4th Respondents, the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th Respondents.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
29. The Petitioner is the niece of the 6th Respondent. The Petitioner
is the one of the daughters of the sister of the 7th Respondent. The 6th
Respondent is the wife of the 7th Respondent.
30. The 6th and 7th Respondents are childless couple who had
adopted the Petitioner’s elder sister, namely Dhanalakshmi, by a registered
Adoption Deed dated 15.07.1997. There is no dispute regarding the same.
31. The 6th Respondent has settled the property measuring an extent
of 1254 sq.ft. in favour of the Petitioner vide a Settlement Deed dated
30.11.2015, registered as Document No.1745 of 2015.
____________
Page No. 13 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
32. In the said Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015, it is recorded that
the Petitioner was the younger daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondent. It
was presumably stated so, on account of the fact that the Petitioner’s elder
sister Dhanalakshmi was earlier adopted by the 7th Respondent vide a
registered Adoption Deed dated 15.07.1997.
33. There are however no documents to show that the petitioner
was also adopted by the sixth and the seventh respondents in accordance
with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Adoption is regulated by Chapter II of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, and any adoption made in contravention of its
provisions is / are void.
34. There are also no documents to indicate that any of the
procedures prescribed under the aforesaid Act have been followed to infer
that the Petitioner was adopted by the 6th and 7th Respondents. Since no
adoption was made as per the procedure prescribed under the said Act, it
has to be therefore construed that the Petitioner is not the adopted
daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondents.
____________
Page No. 14 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
35. The Petitioner is therefore neither the biological daughter nor
the adopted daughter of the 6th and 7th Respondent as per the provisions of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
36. However, that did not preclude the execution of the Settlement
Deed dated 30.11.2015, by the 6th Respondent in favor of the Petitioner
whereby the land together with a house built thereon were settled by the
6th Respondent in favor of the Petitioner.
37. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the 6th Respondent also
executed an unregistered Mortgage Deed dated 11.08.2017 for a sum of
Rs.10,67,000/- in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the land which was
settled by the 6th Respondent vide Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015. The
signature in the said unregistered Mortgage Deed is questioned by the 6th
Respondent. The 6th Respondent contends that the signature in the said
Mortgage Deed dated 11.08.2017 is not that of the 6th Respondent and that
it is forged signature of the 6th Respondent.
38. Relevant portion of the said Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015
reads as under:-
____________
Page No. 15 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023“eP vd; ,isa kfs;. ehd; cd; je;ij. ,t;tpjk;
ek; cwTr; nrhe;jk;. … ”DICUSSION ON THE PRECEDENTS:-
39. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Full
Bench of this Court in Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and Ors., AIR 2022 Mad 323. The Court
in Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer (cited supra) with regard
to unilateral cancellation of gift deed has observed as under:-
“Regarding gift or settlement:
55. With regard to unilateral cancellation of gift
deed, which is not revocable and does not come under
the purview of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property
Act, the Registrar has no power to accept the deed of
cancellation to nullify the registered settlement deed.
Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as
follows:
“126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—
The donor and donee may agree that on the
happening of any specified event which does not
depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be
suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties
agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the
mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as
the case may be. A gift may also be revoked in any of
the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in
which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing
contained in this section shall be deemed to affect____________
Page No. 16 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023the rights of transferees for consideration without
notice.
56. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act
recognizes the power of revocation where the donor
reserves a right to suspend or revoke the gift on
happening of any specified event. However, the
illustrations clarifies that the revocation should be with
the assent of the donee and it shall not be at the will of
donor as a gift revocable at the mere Will of the donor
is void. The Sub-registrar cannot decide whether there
was consent for revocation outside the document. If the
donor by himself reserves a right to revoke the gift at
his Will without the assent by donee, the gift itself is
void. Since we are dealing with unilateral cancellation,
the power of registration of cancellation or revocation
of gift deed cannot be left to the discretion or wisdom of
registering authority on facts which are not available
or descernible from the deed of gift. When the power of
revocation is reserved under the document, it is
permissible to the registering officer to accept the
document revoking the gift for registration only in
cases where the following conditions are satisfied;
(a) There must be an agreement between the donor
and donee that on the happening of a specified
event which does not depend on the Will of the
donor the gift shall be suspended or revoked by
the donor.
(b) Such agreement shall be mutual and expressive
and seen from the document of gift.
(c) Cases which do not fall under Section 126 of
Transfer of Property Act, unless the cancellation
of Gift or Settlement is mutual, the registering
authority shall not rely upon the self serving
statements or recitals in the cancellation deed.
For example questioning whether the gift deed
was accepted or acted upon cannot be decided
by the registering authority for the purpose of
____________
Page No. 17 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
cancelling the registration of gift or settlement
deed.
57. The donor must specifically reserves such
right to suspend or revoke the gift deed with the consent
of donee to attract Section 126 of the Transfer of
Property Act. Unless the agreement is mutual,
expressed in the recitals, the Registering Authority
cannot accept the document for registration. However,
the factual allegations with regard to the acceptance of
gift or the issue where the gift was acted upon or not do
not come under the purview of the Registering Officer.
Hence, the Registering Officer is not excepted to accept
the document unilaterally cancelling the gift deed,
merely on the basis of the statement of the donor or the
recitals in the document for cancellation.
58. From the discussions and conclusions we
have reached above with reference to various
provisions of Statutes and precedents, we reiterate the
dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga
Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in
(2010) 15 SCC 207 and the Full Bench of this Court in
Latif Estate Line India Ltd., case, reported in AIR 2011
Mad 66 and inclined to follow the judgment of three
member Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veena
Singh’s case reported in (2022) 7 SCC 1 and the
judgment of two member Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.,
Case, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 544 for the
following propositions:
(a) A sale deed or a deed of conveyance other than
testamentary dispositions which is executed and
registered cannot be unilaterally cancelled.
(b) Such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or a
deed of conveyance is wholly void and non est
and does not operate to execute, assign, limit or____________
Page No. 18 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023extinguish any right, title or interest in the
property.
(c) Such unilateral cancellation of sale deed or
deed of conveyance cannot be accepted for
registration.
(d) The transferee or any one claiming under him
or her need not approach the civil Court and a
Writ Petition is maintainable to challenge or
nullify the registration.
(e) However, an absolute deed of sale or deed of
conveyance which is duly executed by the
transferor may be cancelled by the Civil Court
at the instance of transferor as contemplated
under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act.
(f) As regards gift or settlement deed, a deed of
revocation or cancellation is permissible only
in a case which fall under Section 126 of
Transfer of Property Act, and the Registering
Authority can accept the deed of cancellation of
gift for registration subject to the conditions
specified in para 42 of this judgment.
(g) The legal principles above stated by us cannot
be applied to cancellation of Wills or power of
Attorney deed which are revocable and not
coupled with interest.
59. As a result of our forgoing conclusions, we
answer the reference by holding that the Registrar has
no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify
the deed of conveyance made earlier, when the deed of
conveyance has already been acted upon by the
transferee. Since anyone may try to mislead or
misinterpret our judgment by referring to the question
of reference we insist that our answer to the reference
should be understood in the light of our conclusions
summarised in the previous paragraph.”
____________
Page No. 19 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
40. This decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and
Ors., AIR 2022 Mad 323 was rendered before the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others,
(2025) 2 SCC 787.
41. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil
Sharan Dixit and others, (cited supra), observed as under:-
“24. Before parting with the case at hand, we
must clarify the observations made vide the impugned
order [Sunil Sharan Dixit v. Urmila Dixit, 2022 SCC
OnLine MP 3776] qua the competency of the Tribunal
to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha
[S. Vanitha v. Commr., (2021) 15 SCC 730] , 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 stand-alone
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____________
Page No. 20 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023Reasons 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 [Sunil Sharan Dixit v. Urmila Dixit, 2022
SCC OnLine MP 3776] with the particulars as
described in para 1 of this judgment, is set aside.
Consequently, the gift deed dated 7-9-2019 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 28-2-2025.
27. The Registry is directed to communicate this
judgment to the authorities concerned of the State of
Madhya Pradesh who shall ensure compliance.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
42. Most of the decisions rendered recently have referred to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan
Dixit and others, (2025) 2 SCC 787. I shall advert to it in due course of
the discussion once again.
43. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs
24 to 26 of the Urmila Dixit case (cited supra), which have been
extracted above, make it clear that the extraordinary remedy under
____________
Page No. 21 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
Sections 23 to 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 have to be read in the light of the express language of
those Sections.
44. With the above observations, I shall proceed to refer to the
scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007.
45. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide for more effective provisions for
the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, as guaranteed
and recognized under the Constitution of India, and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
46. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act, as proposed in
the Bill that was presented in the year 2005, reads as under:
“1. Traditional norms and values of the Indian
society laid stress on providing care for the elderly.
However, due to withering of the joint family system, a
large number of elderly are not being looked after by
their family. Consequently, many older persons,
particularly widowed women are now forced to spend____________
Page No. 22 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023their twilight years all alone and are exposed to
emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial
support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a
major social challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection for the older
persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance
under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the
procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive.
Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and
speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.
2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the
persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives
to maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to
make provisions for setting-up oldage homes for
providing maintenance to the indigent older persons.
The Bill further proposes to provide better
medical facilities to the senior citizens and provisions
for protection of their life and property.
3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for:-
(a) appropriate mechanism to be set up to
provide need-based maintenance to the parents and
senior citizens;
(b) providing better medical facilities to
senior citizens;
(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable
mechanism for protection of life and property of
older persons;
(d) setting up of oldage homes in every
district”____________
Page No. 23 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
47. This has been captured and summarised by the Division Bench
of this Court in Easwaramoorthy v. Paranthaman, 2025 SCC OnLine
Mad 2483. Relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are reproduced
below:-
24. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Bill which was introduced in Parliament declares as
follows:
“Traditional norms and values of the Indian society
laid stress on providing care for the elderly.
However, due to withering of the joint family system,
a large number of elderly are not being looked after
by their family. Consequently, many older persons,
particularly widowed women are now forced to
spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed
to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and
financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing
has become a major social challenge and there is a
need to give more attention to the care and
protection for the older persons. Though the parents
can claim maintenance under the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the procedure is both time-
consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a
need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy
provisions to claim maintenance for parents. The
Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons
who inherit the property of their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to
make provisions for setting-up oldage homes for
providing maintenance to the indigent older persons.
The Bill further proposes to provide better medical
facilities to the senior citizens and provisions for
protection of their life and property.”____________
Page No. 24 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
25. The law has been made in order to cast an
obligation on the persons, who inherit the property of
their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives and
also proposes to make provisions for setting-up old age
homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older
persons and also to provide better medical facilities to
the senior citizens and provisions for protection of their
life and property, etc.
26. The objectives of the Act are summarised as
follows:
(a) To provide for appropriate mechanism to
be set-up to provide need-based maintenance to the
parents and senior citizens from their children,
grandchildren or relatives as the case may be.
(b) To provide for adequate medical facilities
to senior citizens.
(c) To provide for a suitable mechanism for
protection of life and property of senior citizens.
(d) To provide for penal provision for
abandonment of senior citizens.
(e) To provide facilities for poor and destitute
senior citizens.
(f) To provide for setting up of old age homes
in every district.
48. Ordinarily, an order passed under Section 9 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, pursuant to an
application filed by a senior citizen under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act,
is appealable under Section 16 before the Appellate Authority, namely the
District Collector.
____________
Page No. 25 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
49. However, such an appeal can be preferred only by a senior
citizen or a parent aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal, within a period
of sixty days from the date of the order in case of refusal of the authority
to declare the Gift Deed as void under Section 23 of the Act. This remedy
by way of appeal is not available to a beneficiary of Gift Deed or
Settlement Deed.
50. There is no alternate remedy available to the petitioner by way
of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act
against an order under Section 23 of the Act. This is the view taken by the
First Bench of the Principal Bench of this Court in K.Raju vs. Union of
India and others, 2021 (2) CTC 129 : 2021 (1) L.W. 820.
51. The above view was also recently followed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in R.Satheeshkumar and another vs. The District
Collector, Sivagangai District and others, vide Order dated 02.01.2024,
rendered in W.P.(MD) No.5276 of 2020.
52. It is therefore ordered that this Writ Petition is maintainable at
the instance of the Petitioner in absence of an alternate remedy of appeal
____________
Page No. 26 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007.
53. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, gives wide power to the Tribunal contemplated
under the provisions of the said Act to declare a transfer void where such
transfer is subject to the condition that the donee has to maintain the
donor (senior citizen).
54. The Division Bench in Easwaramoorthy Vs. Paranthaman
(cited supra) followed its view in its earlier decisions in the following two
cases:
i. S.Mala Vs. District Arbitrator & District Collector and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 1764 : (2025) 2 CTC
373.
ii. S.Rajan Vs. S.Srinivasan and others, dated 01.04.2025,
rendered in W.A.No.3178 of 2024 [2025:MHC:849].
55. The decisions in S.Mala Vs. District Arbitrator & District
Collector and Others (cited supra), S.Rajan Vs. S.Srinivasan and others
____________
Page No. 27 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
(cited supra) and Easwaramoorthy v. Paranthaman (cited supra) were
rendered by the same Division Bench.
56. The conclusion in Easwaramoorthy v. Paranthaman (cited
supra) are as under:-
VI. Discussions
59. The facts in the present case reveal that the
senior citizen executed the settlement deed due to love
and affection and for the better future of his son.
However, after executing the settlement deed, the
conduct of the son and his wife was indifferent towards
the senior citizen and wife of the senior citizen.
According to the statement of the senior citizen before
the Tribunal and the appellate authority/District
Collector, he was subjected to physical and mental
harassment. He made a specific allegation against his
son and his wife, stating that the settlement deed was
executed forcibly and coercively. The term expressly
stated that the settlement deed has been executed out of
love and affection and for the better future of the
appellant, would be sufficient to satisfy the condition
stipulated under Sections 23(1) of the Senior Citizens
Act.
60.In this context, it is unnecessary to explicitly
state that the children/relatives undertake to maintain
the senior citizen. It is sufficient that the property has
been settled out of love and affection, which serves as
the consideration for executing the settlement or gift
deed.
____________
Page No. 28 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
61. Thus, the condition expressly stated in the
settlement deed is the consideration and an implied
condition to satisfy the requirement under Section 23(1)
of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, this Court do not
find any infirmity in respect of the findings made by the
writ court, which is in consonance with the provisions
of the Senior Citizens Act.
62. Recently, the statistics taken by various
organisations are alarming. Across many States in the
country, the senior citizens are neglected and after
sacrificing their life for the benefit of the family at their
oldage they are in lurch. Many senior citizens are now
staying in oldage homes or in government homes, if
they are poor and even oldaged persons having money
is unable to maintain themselves, on account of
vulnerable situation prevailing in the society. The
senior citizen in the present day society is a target by
the criminals and therefore, protecting the senior
citizen is the duty mandated on the State under the
Constitution of India.
63. The writ court made findings that the children
defending their case merely on the ground that they are
willing to provide food and shelter, cannot be
considered as a ground for the purpose of sustaining
the settlement deed executed by the senior citizen.
64. The requirement of the provisions are to be
complied in its real spirit and in the event of any doubt,
the authority competent is empowered to cancel the
settlement deed or gift deed, as the case may be, in
order to protect the normal life of senior citizen.
65. The possibility of maintaining the senior
citizen in the context of strained relationship is to be
looked into. Therefore, mere statements or affidavits
filed before the courts stating that the son or daughter
will maintain the senior citizen are insufficient. Courts
____________
Page No. 29 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
in application of its mind, has to consider the
practicality of the issues as a whole for the purpose of
declaring the document as null and void.
66. Striking a balance require that the life and
dignity of the senior citizen is protected. That being so,
the best option for the authorities and the courts is to
annul the settlement or gift deed rather than believing
such statements made after arising of the disputes and
when the parties are in strained relationship.
67. Therefore, the approach of the writ court is
balanced and in consonance with the legislative intent
and spirit of the Act. Since, the right to life and dignity
is a fundamental constitutional right, courts cannot
adopt a midway path, which may result in miscarriage
of justice.”
57. The decision of the Division Bench in Easwaramoorthy Vs.
Paranthaman (cited supra) more or less encapsulates the position taken
by the Division Bench in the context of Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The decision of the
Division Bench in Easwaramoorthy Vs. Paranthaman (cited supra) has
been dissented in a decision in Karuppan Vs. District Magistrate-cum-
District Collector, Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and Ors, 2025 SCC Online
Mad 2826 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
____________
Page No. 30 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
58. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Karuppan v. District
Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Appellate Tribunal under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and
others (referred to supra) held that the view expressed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the Easwaramoorthy case (referred to supra) was
per incuriam. Relevant paragraphs read as under:-
“45. In the present case, this Court is faced with
the two Division Bench judgments, which have ignored
the two earlier Coordinate Benches’ decisions by taking
a different view. The decisions of the Supreme Court in
(I) S. Vanitha, (ii) Sudesh Chhikara and (iii) Urmila
Dixit do not support the view taken in S. Mala and
Easwaramoorthy.
48. This decision was approved by a Three
Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, [(2024) 7
SCC 147] wherein a guidance was also given to the
Court as hereunder:
“The law of binding precedent provides that the rule
of per incuriam is an exception to the doctrine of
judicial precedent. Quite literally, it provides that
when a judgment is passed in ignorance of a
relevant precedent or any other binding authority,
the same is said to be postulating incorrect law. It
becomes pertinent to resolve the conflict arising
from diverging opinions by taking recourse to the
ratio decidendi of the earliest opinion.”
49. In view of the above, the earlier decisions of
R. Sekkappan and D. Devi must be followed in
____________
Page No. 31 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
preference to the latter decisions in S. Mala and
Easwaramoorthy. Even otherwise, it has already been
demonstrated that the latter decisions in S. Mala and
Easwaramoorthy are also contrary to the decisions of
the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha, Sudesh Chhikara and
Urmila Dixit. It has also attributed certain observations
to the judgments of the Supreme Court, which cannot be
found even hard if one were to try. The earlier
decisions are supported by numerous decisions of
Single Judges of this Court and half a dozen decisions
of other High Courts.
51. In the light of the above discussions on the
position of law as it stands today, this Court must look
into the facts of the present case and examine as to
whether the impugned proceedings of the second
respondent dated 15.2.2019 requires the interference of
this Court.
52. It is not in dispute that the father of the
petitioner had executed the said settlement deed dated
06.2.1997 in favour of the petitioner. On reading the
recitals in the said settlement deed, it is seen that the
properties have been settled in favour of the petitioner
absolutely. It has also been stated in the said settlement
deed that the said document would not be cancelled
under any circumstances and that the possession of the
properties involved was also handed over to the
petitioner. The fact that the possession of the properties
involved was handed over to the petitioner is supported
by the patta that was issued in the name of the
petitioner in patta No. 831.
53. Apart from that, the name of the petitioner is
also found in the kist receipt issued to the petitioner on
payment of kist. The father of the petitioner did not
reserve any right in the said settlement deed to revoke
the same in future on any contingencies. The father of
____________
Page No. 32 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
the petitioner died and thereafter, the mother of the
petitioner filed an application before the second
respondent seeking for cancellation of the said
settlement deed on the ground that she was deprived of
love and affection from the petitioner and that she was
not taken care by the petitioner.
54. From the above discussions, this Court has
observed that love and affection is not an aspect
touching upon the consideration involved in the said
settlement deed and that it is, at best, a motive for the
settlor to gift/settle the subject properties. This Court
has also given a finding that Section 23(1) of the Act
deals with a situation where the transfer of property is
accompanied by a specific condition to maintain and
provide for the needs of a senior citizen. The same
cannot be either implied or assumed.
55. As per the scheme of the Act, it is only a
senior citizen, who can submit an application and such
a senior citizen must be the transferor of the property
through a gift, settlement, etc. Hence, except a
transferor, no other person can maintain an application
under Section 23(1) of the Act before the Authority
concerned. As a consequence, the application submitted
by the mother of the petitioner is not maintainable and
the second respondent ought not to have entertained the
said application and passed orders.
56. The upshot of the above discussions, both on
facts and in law, would lead to the conclusion that the
impugned proceedings is unsustainable.
57. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned proceedings of the second respondent
dated 15.2.2019 is hereby quashed. If any entry is made
in the encumbrance certificate on the file of the third
respondent pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2019
passed by the second respondent, the same shall be
____________
Page No. 33 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
reversed and the said settlement deed dated 06.2.1997
shall stand restored to the file of the third respondent
by virtue of this order. No costs. Consequently, the
connected WMPs are closed.”
59. Thus, difficulty has arisen as to whether this Court has to follow
the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in S.Mala case,
S.Rajan case and Easwaramoorthy case referred to supra or the views
expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Karuppan case
referred to supra. All the above decisions have referred to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit case referred to supra.
60. The decision in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and
others (cited supra) was rendered in an appeal against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sunil Sharan Dixit
vs. Urmila Dixit, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 3776, which reversed the view of
the learned Single Judge in Sunil Sharan Dixit vs. Urmila Dixit, 2022
SCC OnLine MP 6102.
61. The learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Sunil Sharan Dixit Vs. Urmila Dixit, 2022 SCC Online MP 6102
affirmed the view of the District Collector, Chhatarpur, dated 25.04.2022
____________
Page No. 34 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
in Case No.91/Appeal/2021-2022, who in turn affirmed the
judgment/order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Chairman,
Chhatarpur, dated 27.09.2021 in Case No.98/B-121/2021-22 and thereby
allowed the application filed by the petitioner/appellant Mrs.Urmila Dixit
by setting aside the gift deed dated 09.09.2019 executed by Mrs.Urmila
Dixit in favour of her son Mr.Sunil Sharan Dixit under the provisions of
the said Act.
62. There, the appellant Mrs.Urmila Dixit had purchased the
property on 23.01.1968. She had later gifted the said property to the
respondent in the said case, namely Mr.Sunil Sharan Dixit, by a registered
gift deed dated 09.09.2019.
63. The gift deed was conditional gift deed, wherein the son
Mr.Sunil Sharan Dixit was required to maintain his mother Mrs.Urmila
Dixit. The order also indicates that under the gift deed executed on
09.09.2019, the respondent therein Mr.Sunil Sharan Dixit was required to
take care of his mother Mrs.Urmila Dixit during her lifetime. In the event
of failure to do so, the appellant Mrs.Urmila Dixit was at liberty to revoke
the gift deed.
____________
Page No. 35 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
64. A gift deed, which reserves such rights, is indeed void within
the meaning of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as it
contains a clause to revoke such a gift deed. Such a gift deed is liable to
be declared as void only under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This aspect has not been
considered by the Courts in the above case or by the lower authorities in
this case. In fact, this has also not been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit case referred to supra.
65. As mentioned above, the application filed by the mother Urmila
Dixit was allowed. It was affirmed by the appellate authority, the District
Collector, which was also affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court by order dated 02.08.2022. It was however
subsequently reversed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court by its order dated 31.10.2022. It is in this background the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in (2025) 2 SCC 787.
66. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 takes within its fold any transfer, “by way of
____________
Page No. 36 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
gift or otherwise”, where such transfer is subject to the condition that the
transferee (donee) has to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs
to the transferor (donor).
67. For the sake of clarity, Section 23 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is reproduced below:-
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-sections (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.
____________
Page No. 37 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
68. If the transferee (donee) refuses or fails to provide such
amenities and needs of any senior citizen by way of gift or otherwise, the
transfer of property is deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or
under undue influence at the option of the donor and is liable to be
declared void by the Tribunal.
69. There is no difference in the language and construction between
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 and Clause 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Bill, 2007, which was presented on 06.09.2007.
70. With reference to Clause 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Bill, 2007 in Paragraph 1.9 of the 28th Report
of the Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment
(2007-2008), it was stated as follows:
“1.9. Clause 23(1) enables the senior
citizen/parent who have transferred by way of gift or
otherwise, his/her property, subject to the condition
that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor and if such
transferee refuses or fails to meet the above stated____________
Page No. 38 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023stipulation, 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. It has also
been provided in the legislation through clause 5(2)
that the Tribunal may, during pendency of the
proceedings regarding maintenance, order such
children or relative to pay monthly interim maintenance
to such senior citizen/parent.”
71. Thus, a transfer by way of gift or otherwise, coupled with the
condition to maintain the transferor (donor) and a breach thereof by the
transferee (donee), would attract the deeming provisions under Section 23
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
72. As far as the present case is concerned, a reading of the said
Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 registered as Document No.1745 of
2015 indicates that the 6th Respondent has settled the property in favour of
the petitioner stating that he is settling the property for the benefit of the
petitioner in future.
73. The content of the said Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 is
extracted below with English translation:-
____________
Page No. 39 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023Original content of the Translated content of the Settlement
Settlement Deed dated Deed dated 30.11.2015
30.11.2015
eP vd; ,isa kfs;. ehd; You are my younger daughter. I am
cd; je;ij. ,t;tpjk; ek; your father. This is our relationship.
cwTr; nrhe;jk;. cd; ngaupy;
vdf;Fs;s md;gpdhYk; I, out of my natural love and affection
mgpkhdj;jhYk; cd; gpw;fhy for you and with the intention of
tho;f;if trjpf;fhfTk; providing for your future comfort and
MjuTf;fhfTk; cdf;F support, have voluntarily and with full
VjhtJ xUnrhj;J consent decided to gift and settle a
vOjpitf;f Ntz;L nkd;W property in my name in your favour.
tpUk;gpagbahYk; ehd; kdg; G
+u;tkhf KbT nra;J vd; Accordingly, the property standing in
ngaUf;F Rahu;[Pjkha; my name, purchased by me under
10.7.2015-k; Njjpapy; vOkiy Document No.1.1035/2015 dated
rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy;
10.07.2012 and registered at the
1.1035/2015 ek;gu; gj;jpuk;
%yk; fpiuak; ngw;Wk; vd; Elumalai Sub-Registrar Office,
ngaUf;F 3/420 ek;gu; tPl;Ltup comprising House Tax No.3/420,
jhf;fyhfpAk;> ehd; vd; which I have been holding,
iftrk; itj;J mile;J possessing, and enjoying since the
mDgtpj;J
tUfpd;w ,jdbapy; fz;l date of purchase, is hereby dealt with
Mu;.rp.rp.nrd;l;upq; tPl;il. ehd; as follows:
cdf;F ,e;j jhd nrl;by; From the aforesaid property, I hereby,
nkz;l; gj;jpuj;jpd; %yk; through this Settlement Deed, grant,
vOjpf; nfhLj;J
ghj;jpag;gLj;jp itj;jpUf;fpw convey, and transfer in your favour the
gbahy; ,jdbapy; fz;l RCC (cement concrete) house
&gha;.5>00>000/- ,e;j &gha; described herein, absolutely and
Ie;Jyl;rk; kjpg;G forever, for your use, benefit, and
ngUkhdKs;s
Mu;.rp.rp.nrd;l;upq;tPl;il eP enjoyment. The value of the property
ehsJ Njjp Kjy; so settled is Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
RthjPdkile;J vd;nwd;Wk; Five Lakhs only).
ru;tRje;jpu ghj;jpakha; From the date of this Settlement
jhdhjp tpdpNahf
tpw;fpiuaq;fSf;F Deed, you shall hold, own, and
Nahf;fpakha; cd; ,lk; Nghy; enjoy the said RCC house, together
Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; with all rights, easements, and
nfhs;tuP ;fshfTk;. gl;lh
jq;fs; ngaupy; khw;wpf; appurtenances thereto, absolutely,
nfhs;s ,j;Jld; gl;lh hereditarily, and with full powers of
khWjy; kDTk; alienation, without any let or
nfhLj;Js;Nsd;. ,e;j jhd hindrance from me or any person
nrl;by; nkz;il ,dp ehd;
khw;wNth jpUj;jNth uj;J claiming through me.
nra;aNth vdf;F vt;tpj Simultaneously, I have also submitted____________
Page No. 40 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023mjpfhuKk; cupikAk; ,y;iy the necessary application for transfer
vd;W ehd; KOkdJlDk; of patta (title) in your name.
RaepidTlDk; vOjpf;
nfhLj;j jhdnrl;by; I hereby declare that I shall have no
nkz;lgj;jpuk; ,JNt MFk;. manner of right, title, interest, claim,
or authority whatsoever to cancel,
revoke, modify, or alter this
Settlement Deed in any way from this
day onwards.
This Settlement Deed is executed by
me of my own free will and volition,
in full consciousness and sound mind.
74. The underlined portion clarifies that after the execution of the
Settlement Deed, the sixth respondent shall have no claim or lien over the
said property.
75. Since the Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 executed by the
sixth respondent in favour of the petitioner contains no stipulation of any
condition, it does not prima facie warrant invocation of the provisions of
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007.
76. In fact, where a gift is complete and the donor has done all in
his/her power to give effect to it, it is irrevocable, except in the
circumstances mentioned in Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act,
____________
Page No. 41 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 20231882. Section 126 of the said Act also makes it clear that a Gift Deed
which provides that the gift is revocable, wholly or in part, at the mere
will of the donor, is void to that extent. This aspect has not been noticed
by the Courts. A gift deed at best can contain a clause for maintenance of
the donor.
77. For the sake of clarity, Section 126 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 is reproduced below:
126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—
The donor and donee may agree that on the happening
of any specified event which does not depend on the will
of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a
gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly
or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly
or in part, as the case may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases
(save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it
were a contract, it might be rescinded.
Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed
to affect the rights of transferees for consideration
without notice.
Illustrations
(a) A gives a field to B, reserving to himself, with
B’s assent, the right to take back the field in case B and
____________
Page No. 42 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
his descendants die before A. B dies without
descendants in A’s lifetime. A may take back the field.
(b) A gives a lakh of rupees to B, reserving to
himself, with B’s assent, the right to take back at
pleasure Rs. 10,000 out of the lakh. The gift holds
goods as to Rs. 90,000, but is void as to Rs. 10,000,
which continue to belong to A.
78. Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift
can be revoked and/or suspended only under the following
circumstances:-
i. where the donor and donee agree that on the
happening of any specified event which does not
depend on the will of the donor, a gift shall be
suspended or revoked;
ii. A gift may be rescinded in any of the cases if it were a
contract except for want or failure of consideration;
iii. A gift can be also revoked on the ground of coercion,
fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, if it were
a contract (except want or failure of consideration).
79. The situation is explained best in Illustrations (a) to Section 126
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
80. Under three circumstances extracted above i.e., (i) where there
is an agreement between the donor and the donee that on the happening of
any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor, the
____________
Page No. 43 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
gift will be suspended or revoked; (ii) where the gift being in the nature of
a contract is void on grounds other than want or failure of consideration;
and (iii) where there is coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue
influence, if the gift is in the nature of a contract (except for want or
failure of consideration), the gift can be revoked, suspended, or rescinded.
81. The expression ‘gift’ is defined in Section 122 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. The expression ‘settlement’ is defined in Section
2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Both the definitions are extracted
hereunder for the purpose of clarity:-
Gift Settlement
Section 122 of the Transfer of Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp
Property Act, 1882 Act, 1899
122. “Gift” defined.- “Gift” is 2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless
the transfer of certain existing there is something repugnant in the
moveable or immoveable property subject or context, –
made voluntarily and without
consideration, by one person, called (1) …..
the donor, to another, called the
donee, and accepted by or on behalf (24) “Settlement”. – “settlement”
of the donee. means any non-testamentary
disposition, in writing, of moveable
Acceptance when to be made.- or immovable property made –
Such acceptance must be made (a) in consideration of marriage,
(b) for the purpose of
during the lifetime of the donor and
distributing property of the
while he is still capable of giving. settler among his family or
those for whom he desires to
If the donee dies before provide, or for the purpose of
acceptance, the gift is void. providing for some person
____________
Page No. 44 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
dependent on him, or
(c) for any religious or charitable
purpose:
and includes an agreement in
writing to make such a disposition
and, where any such disposition has
not been made in writing, any
instrument recording, whether by
way of declaration trust or
otherwise, the terms of any such
disposition.
82. There is an element of ‘gift’ in every ‘settlement’. However,
there is a subtle difference between ‘gift’ and ‘settlement’. In the case of a
‘settlement’, there is an element of consideration, which need necessarily
not be in monetary terms.
83. The definition of “settlement” in Section 2(24) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 can be understood as follows:-
Settlement is non-testamentary disposition, in writing, of
movable or immovable property made for the following
purposes:
(a) (b) (c)
in i. for the purpose of for any religious
consideration distributing property or charitable
of marriage of the settler among purpose
his family,
____________
Page No. 45 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
ii. for the purpose of
distributing property
of the settler among
those for whom he
desires to provide,
and
iii. for the purpose of
providing for some
person dependent on
him
84. The definition of ‘settlement’ in Section 2(24) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 includes an agreement in writing to make such a
disposition and where any such disposition has not been made in writing,
any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration trust or
otherwise, the terms of any such disposition is also a ‘settlement’.
85. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.P.Saseendran Vs.
N.P.Ponnamma and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 626 has also
explained the difference between ‘gift’ and ‘settlement’ in paragraph 11.3.
It is reproduced below:-
“Interplay between Gift and Settlement
11.3. As we have already seen, the primary difference
between the Gift and the Settlement is the existence of
consideration in the settlement. Consideration is____________
Page No. 46 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023nothing but the quid pro quo, that each party to a
contract is to perform or render a part of their
obligation under the contract. In view of the fact that a
gift is a voluntary disposition, it is essentially not an
agreement and hence, the element of consideration is
taken away from it. Settlement on the other hand is
always coupled with consideration as it is mostly
executed in favour of a family member. The gift or
settlement of an immovable property has to be
registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. The
conditions regarding acceptance, reservation of life
interest and restriction on revocation are applicable to
both “gift and settlement”. The vesting of the right also
takes place in praesenti in both the cases. Therefore,
there is an element of gift in every settlement. …”
86. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case in
Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) thr. lrs. and others Vs. Ramulu Ammal
(Dead) thr. lrs., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3301, has held as under:-
“15.4 What flows from the above-cited judgments
as also provisions of law, is that ‘consideration’ need
not always be in monetary terms. It can be in other
forms as well. In the present case, it is seen that the
transfer of property in favour of Govindammal was in
recognition of the fact that she had been taking care of
the transferors and would continue to do so while also
using the same to carry out charitable work. Although
the deed stands reproduced supra, for immediate
recollection the relevant extract is once again
reproduced hereinbelow:
“…execute this Settlement deed that you are the only
daughter of Bagi Reddi and that we do not have any____________
Page No. 47 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023wife or children or legal heirs and you happened to
be the daughter of our elder brother Chenga Reddi
and that since we do not have any wife or children
and you happened to have looked after us very well
till now and that herein after you will look after our
food and shelter needs and in the belief that you
would do all the charitable work.”15.5 In that view of the matter, the High Court
has erred in taking such a constricted view of
‘consideration’, especially taking note of the fact that
this settlement was between the members of a family.”
87. The law on the subject has been settled. Difference between
‘gift’ and ‘settlement’ has been summarised succinctly in a discussion on
the website ‘www.restthecase.com’. I have partly modified the summation
for the present case as follows:-
Factor Gift Settlement
Subject Both movable and Both movable and
matter immovable immovable
Consideration No monetary or other No monetary consideration;
consideration; purely May involve conditions or
voluntary and gratuitous future interests, often based
on love, affection, or moral
obligation.
Transferee Any person Any person, but often being
a family member
Revocability Generally irrevocable once
accepted and registered,
____________
Page No. 48 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
except under section 126 of
TP Act, 1882. Not
unilaterally revocable.
Revocable under Section 23 Revocable under Section 23
of the Maintenance and of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Senior Citizens Act, 2007,
where there is a express where there is a express
condition to maintain the condition to maintain the
doner as per the decision of doner as per the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil
Sharan Dixit and others, Sharan Dixit and others,
(2025) 2 SCC 787. (2025) 2 SCC 787.
Registration Mandatory registration for Compulsory registration
immovable property under under the Registration Act,
Section 17 of the 1908. for immovable
Registration Act, 1908 property as well.
Legal Intent Transfer is intended as a Structured asset planning,
gratuitous gift with no succession arrangements, or
expectation of return. dispute avoidance within
families.
Effect on Complete and absolute Ownership can be divided,
Ownership transfer; the donor e.g., a life estate for one
relinquishes all rights. beneficiary, the rest for
others.
Acceptance Must be accepted by the Acceptance may be
donee during the donor’s required, but terms may
lifetime and still donor is specify timing and
capable of giving. conditions of acceptance.
If donee dies before
acceptance the gift becomes
invalid.
88. Thus, as mentioned above, there is a subtle difference between
‘gift simpliciter’ and ‘settlement’. The definition of ‘settlement’ in Section
____________
Page No. 49 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 makes it clear that it is a non-
testamentary deposition in writing of movable or immovable property. As
per the definition, it can be in consideration of marriage. It can also be for
the purpose of distributing property of the settlor among his/her family.
89. Normally, in the case of Settlement Deed, the settlor has surplus
property and therefore decides to settle the property in favour of the
settlee or where the settlor wants to avoid uncertainty which is normally
associated with a “Will”, which is a form of testamentary disposition of
property insofar as the creation of the interest in favour of the legatee.
90. A settlement deed is also executed to distribute properties
among those for whom the settlor desires to provide or for the benefit of
some persons who are dependent on him.
91. There are no indications that the 6th Respondent was endowed
with any surplus property to make a gift simpliciter or settle the property
for any of the purposes stipulated in the definition of ‘settlement’ in
Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
____________
Page No. 50 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
92. This aspect has to be considered. This has not been considered
in any of the decisions of the Courts rendered so far in the context of
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007. The Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court have treated
‘gift’ and ‘settlement’ on par with each other without reference to subtle
distinction between two as indicated above.
93. It has to be also emphasised that the scope of the operation of
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 is wide. It not only deals with a “gift” simpliciter coupled with
an ‘obligation’ but also with other forms of transfer, as the expression
used in Section 23 of the Act is “by way of gift” or “otherwise”.
94. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi
and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1684, dealt with a gift deed in which
there was no condition requiring the donee to look after the senior citizen
after execution of the gift deed.
95. Referring to Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
____________
Page No. 51 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
that effecting a transfer subject to a condition of providing basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor–senior citizen is a sine qua non
for the applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23.
96. In Paragraph No. 13 in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (cited
supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court made an observation as under:-
‘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 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.’
97. The above case in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (cited
supra) dealt with the gift deed.
98. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in S.Vanitha v. Commr., Bengaluru., (2021) 15 SCC 730, elaborately
considered the legislative scheme, rights of residence, safeguarding
against domestic violence, etc.
____________
Page No. 52 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
99. In para 23 to 25 of the Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the distinction between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23.
Paragraphs 23 to 25 from S.Vanitha v. Commr., Bengaluru., (cited
supra) are extracted as under:-
23. On the other hand, sub-section (2) of Section
23 envisages a situation where a senior citizen has a
right to receive maintenance out of an estate. Where
such a right exists, the right of maintenance can be
enforced where the estate or a portion of it, is
transferred against a transferor who has notice of the
right; or if the transfer is gratuitous. The right however
cannot be enforced against a transferee for
consideration and without notice of the right. Now, sub-
section (1) of Section 23 envisages a situation where
the transfer of property is by the senior citizen. This is
evident from the language of sub-section (1), namely,
“where any senior citizen who, after the commencement
of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise,
his property…”. On the other hand, sub-section (2) of
Section 23 does not confine itself to a transfer by a
senior citizen, unlike sub-section (1). Sub-section (2)
uses the expression “such estate or part thereof is
transferred”. Where a senior citizen has a right to
receive maintenance out of the estate and any part of it
is transferred, sub-section (2) permits the enforcement
of the right to receive maintenance out of the estate
against a transferee with notice or against a gratuitous
transferee. Sub-section (2), in other words, may cover a
situation where the transfer of the estate (in which a
senior citizen has a right to maintenance) is by a third
party, in which event, the provision provides the right
to enforce the claim of maintenance against such
____________
Page No. 53 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
transferee (other than those transferees for
consideration or without notice of the pre-existing
right). Arguably, the language of sub-section (2) is
broad enough to also cover a situation where the
transfer is by the senior citizen, in which event the
transferee with notice of the right; or a gratuitous
transferee, can be made subject to the enforcement of
the right against the transferred estate.
24.Another distinction between sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2) of Section 23 must also be noticed.
Under sub-section (1), where a transfer has been made
by a senior citizen subject to the condition that the
transferee will provide for basic amenities or physical
needs of the transferor and if there is a failure of the
transferee to fulfil the condition, two consequences
follow : (i) the transfer of property shall be deemed to
have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence; and (ii) the transfer shall, at the option of the
transferor, be declared to be void by the Tribunal. The
deeming consequence which is provided for in sub-
section (1) is not incorporated in sub-section (2). Sub-
section (2), in contradistinction, stipulates that the right
to receive maintenance can be enforced against a
gratuitous transferee or a transferee with notice of the
pre-existing right of a citizen to receive maintenance
out of an estate notwithstanding who is the transferee
of the estate. In keeping with the salutary public
purpose underlying the enactment of the legislation, the
expression “transfer” would include not only the
absolute transfer of property but also transfer of a right
or interest in the property. This would also be in
consonance with the provisions of Section 2(f) which
defines the expression “property” to include “rights or
interests in such property”. The expression “transfer”
not having been defined specifically by the legislation,
it must receive an interpretation which would advance
the beneficent object and purpose of its provisions. Sub-
section (2) of Section 23 speaks of the enforcement of
____________
Page No. 54 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
the “right to receive maintenance” which is more
comprehensive in its nature, than merely enforcing an
order for maintenance passed under Section 9 of the
Act.
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 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
____________
Page No. 55 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
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. 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.
100. This Court in Mohd. Dayan v. Collector, 2023 SCC Online
Mad 6071 considered the scope of the Senior Citizens Act observed as
under. Relevant portion of the Judgement is extracted hereunder:-
‘34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase
“lead a normal life” Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance
of Senior Citizen Rules, enumerates that “it shall be the
duty of the District Collector to ensure that life and
property of senior citizens of the district are protected
and they are able to live with security and dignity”.
Therefore, normal life includes security and dignity.
Thus, the normal life as indicated under Section 4(2) of
the Act, is not mere life, but a life with security and
dignity. In the context of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, life includes decent medical facility, food,
shelter with dignity and security. All such combined
necessities of human life is falling under the term
“normal life” emboldened under Section 4(2) of the
Senior Citizen Act. Therefore, simply providing food
and shelter would be insufficient. But life includes
providing of decent medical facilities, food, shelter and
other requirements with dignity in commensuration____________
Page No. 56 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023with the status of the family and taking into
consideration of the living style of the senior citizen
throughout.
***
38. The Kerala High Court observed in
Radhamani case, Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen
Act, cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the
senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates
that “where any senior citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has 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”. The phrase “subject to
the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic
amenities” does not mean that the gift or settlement
deed should contain any such condition expressly.
“Subject to the condition” as employed in Section
23(1), is to be holistically understood with reference to
the subsequent phrase i.e. “deemed to have been made
by fraud or coercion or undue influence”. Both the
phrases would amplify that the deeming clause should
be considered so as to form an opinion that the phrase
“subject to condition” amounts to an implied condition
to maintain the senior citizen and any violation would
be sufficient for the purpose of invoking Section 23(1)
of the Act, to cancel the gift or settlement deed executed
by the senior citizen.
***
41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens
Act, is to consider the human conduct towards them.
When the human conduct is indifferent towards senior
citizen and their security and dignity are not protected,
____________
Page No. 57 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
then the provisions of the Act, is to be pressed into
service to safeguard the security and dignity of senior
citizen. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the
provisions are of paramount importance and Section 23
of the Act, cannot be mis-utilised for the purpose of
rejecting the complaint filed by the senior citizen on the
ground that there is no express condition for
maintaining the senior citizen. Even in the absence of
any express condition in the document, “love and
affection” being the consideration for execution of gift
or settlement deed, such love and affection becomes a
deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to
invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no
infirmity in respect of the order passed by the second
respondent in the present case.’”
101. In Promil Tomar v. State of Haryana, 2014 SCC Online P&H
3251 the Punjab and Haryana High Court was held that the word
“otherwise” used under Section 23(1) of the Act would include transfer of
ownership, possession by way of a lease deed, mortgage, licence, gift or
sale deed. Relevant paragraph from Promil Tomar v. State of Haryana
(cited supra) is extracted hereunder:-
“19. “The word ‘otherwise’ cannot be ignored for the
objective of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance Act. In
context to the objectives of the Act, ‘transfer’ would
mean that transfer of property by senior citizen need
not be a gift only but it could be any transfer within the
meaning of the Transfer of Property Act or would even
include transferring of any right of the nature of title or
possession…. A senior citizen who had transferred his____________
Page No. 58 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023right, title or interest to any other person by gift or
otherwise (which would include transfer of possession
by lease, mortgage or licence) would become void in
the event of transferee refusing to provide amenities
and physical needs. The said transfer in such
circumstances would be termed as fraud and would be
void.”
102. In Sunita Bhasin v. State of NCT on Delhi, 2018 SCC Online
Del 13664, it was held that, it is implicit in any gift of property, that is
executed out of natural love and affection, that the transferee would
reciprocate the love and affection and, at the very least, provide the basic
amenities and meet the physical needs of the donor and express stipulation
that the gift deed has been made on an understanding that the transferee
would look after the basic needs of the donor is not necessary.
103. When a gift is made, there cannot be any consideration. It has
to be made voluntarily and acceptance has to take place during the
lifetime of the donor, as is evident from the definition in Section 122 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
104. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 merely adds another facet, which is absent in
____________
Page No. 59 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. By a deeming
provision, such a transfer is void at the option of the transferor. Thus,
there is a slight overlap where the gift is a contract and is coupled with an
obligation, as contemplated under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
105. Whenever a property is settled by the settlor in favour of the
settlee, the settlee is expected to maintain either the settlor or any person
who is dependent of the settlor. Otherwise, the settlor would have
executed a gift deed.
106. Unlike in the case of a ‘gift’ simpliciter, where there is no
expectation and no consideration, a gift has merely to satisfy the
requirements of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the
other hand, a ‘settlement’ under Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 contemplates a reciprocal obligation. It is implicit in a ‘settlement’
under Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 that it is for the
purpose of distributing the property of the settlor among his family or
those for whom he desires to provide or for the purpose of providing for
some person dependent on him.
____________
Page No. 60 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
107. As mentioned above, there is a subtle and distinct distinction
between a “Settlement Deed” and a “Gift Deed”. The obligation to
maintain the settlor is implicit in a Settlement Deed, in view of the
distinction between a ‘Settlement Deed’ and a ‘Gift Deed’.
108. Since there is a subtle distinction between a “Settlement Deed”
and a “Gift Deed”, the stamp duty payable under the provisions of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 also differs.
109. In the case of a “Gift Deed”, the stamp duty that is payable is
the same as that of a conveyance, i.e., it is treated on par with a sale.
Whereas, in the case of a “Settlement Deed”, stamp duty is payable at
concessional rate.
110. For the sake of clarity, the stamp duty payable on a Gift Deed
and the stamp duty payable on a Settlement Deed, as per Schedule I to the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, are reproduced below:
SCHEDULE I
STAMP DUTY ON INSTRUMENTS (See Section 3)
(Corrected upto Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 2004
came into force on 16.12.2004____________
Page No. 61 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023S.No. Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty
33 Gift- Instrument of, not being a The same duty as a
Settlement (No.58) or Will or Conveyance (No.23) for a
Transfer (No.62) market value equal to the
market value of the
property which is the
subject matter of gift.
58 Settlement- One rupee for every Rs.
100 or par thereof of the
(a) instrument of (including a deed of a market value of the
dower)- property which is under
settlement:
(i) if the instrument of settlement is in
favour of a member or members of a
family;
Provided that, where an agreement to settle is stamped with
the stamp required for an instrument of settlement and an
instrument of settlement in pursuance of such agreement is
subsequently executed, the duty on such instrument shall not
exceed twenty rupees.
Explanation.-
For the purpose of this Article, the word “family” means
father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild, brother,
or sister. In the case of any one whose personal law permits
adoption, “father” shall include an adoptive father, “mother” an
adoptive mother, “son” an adopted son and “daughter” an
adopted daughter.
(ii) in any other case-
(A) of immovable property situated Thirteen rupees for every
within the Chennai Metropolitan Rs.100/- or part thereof of
Planning Area and the Urban the market value of the
agglomeration of Madurai, property which is the subject
Coimbatore, Salem and matter of settlement
Tiruchirapalli and the City of
Tirunelveli.
____________
Page No. 62 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
(B) of immovable Property situated in Twelve rupees for every
other areas; Rs.100 or part thereof of the
market value of the property
which is the subject matter
of settlement.
(C) of any other property Seven Rupees for every Rs.
100 or part thereof of the
market value of the property
which is the subject matter
of settlement.
Exemption.- Deed of dower executed on the occasion of a
marriage between Muhammadans
(b) Revocation of – The same duty as Bottomry
Bond (No.16) for a sum
equal to the amount or value
of the property concerned as
set forth in the instrument of
Revocation but not
exceeding on thousand
rupees
111. That apart, a deed of ‘settlement’ need not expressly stipulate
that it is being executed with a reciprocal obligation to maintain a person
dependent of the settlor or the settlor himself or herself, as a deed of
‘settlement’ is executed in the form of member of a family to take care of
the person specified in the definition of ‘settlement’ in Section 2(24) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
____________
Page No. 63 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
112. Execution of a Settlement Deed implies an implicit obligation
on the part of the settlee to maintain the settlor or such other persons as
contemplated in the definition of ‘Settlement Deed’ in Section 2(24) of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
113. The underlying reason for settling a property is for the purpose
of maintaining either the settlor himself or herself or a dependent of such
a settlor. This is the definition of ‘settlement’ in Section 2(24) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If the settlor has no other means for his or her
own maintenance after a settlement is made, the failure to maintain such
senior citizen would attract the sting under Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even in the absence
of a clause to maintain the settlor(s) during his/her lifetime or their
lifetime.
114. However, in the case of a Gift Deed, a caluse can be
incorporated whereby an obligation can be cast on the donee to maintain
the donor or any person on behalf of the donor. In case of failure on the
part of the donee, the Gift Deed cannot be ordinarily cancelled under the
scheme of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However,
____________
Page No. 64 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
breach of the obligation cast under a gift deed can warrant cancellation of
the gift deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, at the option of the donor.
115. Therefore, the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2023 canceling the
Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 does not warrant interference.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
116. As far as the contention of the Petitioner that in order to
discharge the surcharge proceedings faced by the 6th Respondent, being an
employee of the Mallapuram Agricultural Cooperative Society, the
property was settled in favour of the Petitioner on 30.11.2015 and that the
said property was thereafter mortgaged to obtain a loan of Rs.7,50,000/-
and the loan entire amount was paid to the 6th Respondent partly through
bank transfer and partly in cash is concerned, it was open for the
Petitioner to recover the amount paid to the 6th Respondent by instituting
appropriate proceedings, if the petitioner is so advised.
117. As far as the question of comparing the signatures is
concerned, this Court can compare the signatures of the 6th Respondent in
____________
Page No. 65 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
the documents produced before this Court in the light of the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs.
Navaneethammal and others, (2008) 4 SCC 530, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
“15.1. In State v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158 :
1979 SCC (Cri) 389] this Court held that a court does
not exceed its power under Section 73 if it compares the
disputed writing with the admitted writing of the party
so as to reach its own conclusion. But this Court
cautioned: (SCC p. 168, para 30)“30. … Although there is no legal bar to the Judge
using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing
with the admitted writing, even without the aid of
the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge
should, as a matter of prudence and caution,
hesitate to base his finding with regard to the
identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet
anchor of the prosecution case against a person
accused of an offence, solely on comparison made
by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge
should take upon himself the task of comparing the
admitted writing with the disputed one to find out
whether the two agree with each other; and the
prudent course is to obtain the opinion and
assistance of an expert.”The caution was reiterated in O. Bharathan v. K.
Sudhakaran [(1996) 2 SCC 704] . Again in Ajit
Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC
110 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 992] referring to Section 73 of
the Evidence Act, this Court held: (SCC p. 122, paras
37-38)____________
Page No. 66 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023“37. … The section does not specify by whom the
comparison shall be made. However, looking to the
other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such
comparison may either be made by a handwriting
expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with
the handwriting of the person concerned as provided
by Section 47 or by the Court itself.
38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial
sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon
itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed
signature with that of the admitted signature or
handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt,
leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this
does not mean that the Court has not the power to
compare the disputed signature with the admitted
signature as this power is clearly available under
Section 73 of the Act.”15.2. In Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1
SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] this Court indicated
the circumstances in which the court may itself
compare disputed and admitted writings thus: (SCC p.
712, para 12)
“12. The argument that the court should not venture
to compare writings itself, as it would thereby
assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely
without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act
expressly enables the court to compare disputed
writings with admitted or proved writings to
ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by
whom it purports to have been written. If it is
hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid
it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant
must expose themselves whenever it becomes
necessary. There may be cases where both sides call
experts and two voices of science are heard. There
may be cases where neither side calls an expert,
____________
Page No. 67 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
being ill-able to afford him. In all such cases, it
becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the
writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty
cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that
the court is no expert. Where there are expert
opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is
none, the court will have to seek guidance from some
authoritative textbook and the court’s own
experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its
plain duty, with or without expert, with or without
other evidence.”
The decision in Murari Lal [(1997) 7 SCC 110 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 992] was followed in Lalit Popli v. Canara
Bank [(2003) 3 SCC 583 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 353] .
16. While there is no doubt that court can
compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger
impression with the admitted
handwriting/signature/finger impression, such
comparison by court without the assistance of any
expert, has always been considered to be hazardous
and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a court
to compare the disputed finger impression with the
admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that
it can record an opinion or finding on such
comparison, only after an analysis of the
characteristics of the admitted finger impression and
after verifying whether the same characteristics are
found in the disputed finger impression. The
comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be
casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the
judgment that there appeared to be no marked
differences between the admitted thumb impression and
disputed thumb impression, without anything more,
cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed
signature is of the person who has put the admitted
thumb impression. Where the court finds that the
disputed finger impression and admitted thumb
____________
Page No. 68 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
impression are clear and where the court is in a
position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints,
the court may record a finding on comparison, even in
the absence of an expert’s opinion. But where the
disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very
light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual
perusal.”
118. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704 held as under:
“12. The argument that the court should not
venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby
assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without
force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables
the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or
proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of
the person by whom it purports to have been written. If
it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are
afraid it is one of the hazards to which Judge and
litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes
necessary. There may be cases where both sides call
experts and two [ Vide Correction slip No. F. 3/79
(Ed.J) dt. 21-8-80] voices of science are heard. There
may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being
ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the
plain duty of the court to compare the writings and
come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be
avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is
no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will
aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have
to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook
and the court’s own experience and knowledge. But
discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without
expert, with or without other evidence. We may
mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar [AIR____________
Page No. 69 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 20231967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] and Fakhruddin v.
State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197]
were cases where the Court itself compared the
writings.”
119. This Court in N.Senthil Prasad Vs. R.Anbu Selvi vide Order
dated 20.11.2018 rendered in C.R.P(MD)No.1981 of 2018 has however
held as under:-
11. Under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
the Court itself can undertake comparison of
signature / handwriting of disputed document. The
opinion of an Expert will be only a supporting
material and cannot be treated as conclusive one.
Ultimately, it is for the Court to come to a conclusion
as to the genuinity and otherwise of the signatures. If
the Court is capable of forming of such an opinion
based on the oral and documentary evidence before it
and in the exercise of Section 73 of the Act, the
necessity to send the document for expert’s opinion may
not arise. Here, in this case, it is seen that the Court
below has not exercised Section 73 of the Act and not
dealt with the merits of the case and therefore, this
Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the
Court below.
120. The signatures of the 6th Respondent in the Deed of Adoption
dated 15.07.1997, whereby the Petitioner’s elder sister, Dhanalakshmi,
was adopted and in the Sale Deed dated 31.01.2007, by which the
Petitioner’s biological father, Periyasamy, purchased the land where the
____________
Page No. 70 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
6th Respondent signed as a witness are almost similar. They are scanned
and reproduced below:
Signature of the sixth respondent Signature of the sixth respondent
in Deed of Adoption dated in Sale Deed dated 31.01.2007
15.07.1997
121. Prima facie, the signatures of the 6th Respondent in the Sale
Deed dated 10.07.2015 by virtue of which the 6th Respondent has
purchased the land from the Petitioner’s biological mother, Nallakudi and
the Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2015 and unregistered Mortgage Deed
dated 11.08.2017, which is said to have been executed by the 6th
Respondent in favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.10,67,000/- are in
variance with each other. They are scanned and reproduced below:
Signature of the sixth Signature of the sixth Signature of the sixth
respondent in Sale respondent in Settlement respondent in
Deed dated 10.07.2015 Deed dated 30.11.2015 Unregistered Mortgage
Deed dated 11.08.2017____________
Page No. 71 of 74https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
122. The signature in the unregistered Mortgage Deed dated
11.08.2017 prima facie appear to be forged and fabricated. In case, the
Petitioner wants to rely on the same, it is for the Petitioner to establish that
that the signature in the unregistered Mortgage Deed dated 11.08.2017 is
that of the 6th Respondent. The onus lies on the Petitioner to discharge the
burden of proof.
123. In the result, this Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with
the above observation. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to recover the
amount said to have been paid by the Petitioner to the 6th Respondent in
accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
14.08.2025
JEN
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Executive Magistrate,
The Authority under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
Usilampatti, Madurai.
____________
Page No. 72 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Elumalai, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Elumalai Police Station, Madurai.
5.The Tahsildar,
Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai.
____________
Page No. 73 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
JEN
Pre-Delivery Order made
in
W.P.(MD) No.26973 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.23166 & 23167 of 2023
14.08.2025
____________
Page No. 74 of 74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 04:24:27 pm )
[ad_1]
Source link