(Common Prayer: These Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.C1/12058/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and to quash the same as arbitrary and ultravires.)

Common Order

1. The present writ petitions have been filed by two sons of one Mr.Desapandudoss challenging the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 18.08.2022 under Section 16 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. The fourth respondent in both the writ petitions namely Mr.Desapandudoss was the owner of an extent of 96 cents in Survey No. 973/1B Metilpatti Village, Pudur Sub-Registrar Office, Tuticorin Sub- Registration District with Patta No.880. He had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son namely Gandhiraj (petitioner in WP(MD).No.20699 of 2022) on 13.11.2020. The said Desapandudoss had executed another settlement deed in favour of his another son namely Prabakar (petitioner in WP(MD).No.20698 of 2022) with regard to a house property on 13.11.2020.

3. The fourth respondent herein had approached the Tribunal under the Act on 20.12.2021 seeking to cancel both the settlement deeds by way of two separate applications. The Tribunal had rejected the request of the senior citizen for cancellation of the settlement deeds. But issued a direction to the sons to permit the senior citizen to reside in the ancestral house. It further issued a direction that all the four children should take care of the senior citizen and his wife. Challenging the same, the senior citizen has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 18.08.2022 had allowed the appeal and has proceeded to issue a direction to cancel both the settlement deeds. Challenging both these orders, the sons have preferred these two independent writ petitions.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, the senior citizen is a retired Government servant and he is receiving pension to a tune of about Rs.28,000/- per month and his wife namely Vijayalakshmi Pandit is a retired teacher and she is receiving a sum of Rs.29,000/- per month as pension. Therefore, the allegations of the senior citizen that the sons have not taken care of the father is not factually correct.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions had further submitted that even as per the application of the senior citizen, he is residing in another ancestral property along with his wife which is not convenient for him. Only on the said ground, the present application has been filed seeking to cancel the settlement deeds.

6. The learned counsel had further submitted that admittedly, the senior citizen has given Rs.24,00,000/- each to both his daughters just three months prior to the filing of the complaint before the Tribunal. Therefore only to harass the sons, at the instigation of the daughters, the present complaints have been lodged before the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners had further submitted that the settlement deeds does not contain any clause wherein the right of the donor is reserved for cancellation of the document in case, the donee has not taken care of the donor. When such an condition is not available in the document, the present application before the Tribunal is not at all maintainable. He had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 ( Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another) in support of his contention. He had further submitted that as on today, the senior citizen is residing in his ancestral property and drawing pension of Rs.28,000/- on his own and another Rs.29,000/- by his wife. In such circumstances, the allegations of the senior citizen are not sustainable in the eye of law.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the senior citizen /fourth respondent submitted that the father was initially residing in the ancestral property which was gifted to the son. Later, under the pretext of renovation, the senior citizen was directed to occupy another ancestral house. However, after renovation, the property was not handed over to the senior citizen. He had further submitted that the property, in which currently the senior citizen is residing is highly inconvenient without any proper facilities. Even though the senior citizen may be receiving pension, he is not having any proper residential property. Hence, the present applications were filed to cancel the settlement deeds. He further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at a specific finding that all the three families cannot reside together and has proceeded to cancel the settlement deeds. In such circumstances, there is no other alternative than to cancel the settlement deeds. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil).No.42786 of 2025 (Kamalakant Mishra Vs. Additional Collector & others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has got every power to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. He had further submitted that even in that case the senior citizen was financially stable but a direction was issued to evict the family members of the senior citizen for convenient enjoyment. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

10. Heard both sides and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

11. As far as the financial stability of the senior citizen is concerned, it is not in dispute that he is a State Government pensioner drawing Rs.28,000/- per month and his wife is drawing Rs.29,000/- per month. Therefore, the financial instability of the senior citizen does not arise in these cases for cancellation of the settlement deeds.

12. Admittedly, the senior citizen is residing in another ancestral property which has not been gifted in favour of his sons. However, the grievance of the senior citizen is that no proper kitchen and toilet facilities are available in the said house and therefore, he would like to shift himself to the ancestral property which was gifted in favour of his sons.

13. A perusal of both settlement deeds would reveal that the gift deed in favour of Gandhiraj namely the petitioner in WP(MD).No.20699 of 2022 is only an agricultural property having an extent of 96 cents. It is not known why the senior citizen seeks cancellation of this settlement deed also, when his sole grievance is with regard to his convenient accommodation in a house property.

14. A perusal of the gift deed executed in favour of Prabakar, the petitioner in WP(MD).No.20678 of 2022 is concerned, it reveals that the house property has been settled in favour of the said petitioner. According to the senior citizen, after he had moved on to another ancestral property, his son Prabakar had put up additional constructions in the said property and he is conveniently enjoying the same. However, the senior citizen finds himself in a very difficult position to reside in another ancestral property which does not have proper kitchen or toilet facilities. The senior citizen is aged 88 years and therefore, he requires a proper residential house along with kitchen and toilet facilities for his convenient enjoyment at his ripe old age.

15. It should also be taken into consideration that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 (Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another) and (2025) 2 SCC 787 ( Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others) has categorically held that unless both criteria, namely transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basis amenities and the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities are satisfied, Section 23(1) of the Act cannot be invoked. In the present case, admittedly such a clause is not found in both the settlement deeds.

16. The Tribunal has passed an order directing the sons to accommodate the father in the house and to take care of him. This order has not been put to challenge by the sons. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that without cancelling the settlement deed, there can be a direction to the petitioners in the writ petitions to accommodate the senior citizen in the residential house till their life time. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal that all the three families cannot reside in a single house, is not based upon any evidence or submissions of the parties. In fact, the sons have not chosen to challenge an order directing them to accommodate the senior citizen.

(D).Conclusion:

17. The orders of the first respondent dated 18.08.2022 which are impugned in both the writ petitions are set aside. The orders of the second respondent dated 05.03.2022 in both the writ petitions are hereby restored. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.