(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka. Ji1/2901855/2025 dated 27.02.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent herein modifying the proceedings in Moo.Moo. A1/2461/2024 dated 20.11.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.)

1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the first and second respondents, dated 27.02.2025 and 20.11.2024 respectively, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The third respondent executed an irrevocable Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2022, registered as Document No.10387 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Woraiyur, in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the third respondent filed a complaint under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the Settlement Deed. The second respondent rejected the request for cancellation and the said order was confirmed by the first respondent in appeal. However, while confirming the order, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said direction insofar as it relates to the payment of maintenance, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 12.06.2025, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the credit of the second respondent.

4. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, the learned counsel submitted that, it was categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed dated 22.11.2022 does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. In the absence of such a condition incorporated in the document of transfer, the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, would not be attracted.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, has held that the deeming fiction under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can be invoked only when the transfer is made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and the transferee fails to fulfil such condition. Unless such a condition is expressly incorporated in the document of transfer, the jurisdiction under Section 23 cannot be exercised for declaring the transfer void. The Supreme Court further held that the authorities constituted under the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to annul a transfer in the absence of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 23.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the document in question is a registered settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the petitioner to provide the basic amenities and physical needs of the third respondent. Therefore, the authorities were justified in holding that the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not attracted and in declining the request for cancellation of the settlement deed. Consequently, no interference is called for with the concurrent findings of the respondents in that regard.

9. It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted his obligation to maintain the third respondent and has also deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 12.06.2025. In such view of the matter, the direction issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the third respondent does not warrant interference. The petitioner shall continue to pay the said amount on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. In the event of any default, it is open to the third respondent to work out his remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in accordance with law. The second respondent is directed to disburse the amount already deposited by the petitioner to the third respondent forthwith.

10. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.