(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents resulting in the first respondent's impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Na.Ka.No.3521762/2025/C1 and quash the same and forbearing the respondents from cancelling and mutation of patta in favour of the third respondent and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the Punja land inherited through the Dhana Settlement deed dated 26.12.2007 duly registered as Doc.No. 3962/2007 in the Sub Registration Office, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.)

1. Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 3521762/2025/C1 dated 29.08.2025, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent is the petitioner's father and the third respondent executed a gift settlement deed bearing Document No.3962 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007, in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the second respondent. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent, after conducting enquiry, ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance to the third respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the third respondent preferred appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent in and by proceedings dated 29.08.2025, cancelled the settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The settlement deeds dated 26.12.2007, executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner is an absolute and irrevocable settlement. He further submitted that Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only when the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition is breached. In the absence of any such condition in the settlement deed, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to cancel the settlement deed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein, it has been 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.

5. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deeds were executed in the year 2007, well before the Act namely the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, came into force. Hence, the Act does not get attracted. In this regard, he relied on the Division Bench judgment in the case of M.M.Ramesh Vs. M.S.Manikavasagam and another reported in 2026 (2) CTC 513. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

6. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the issue is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala's case, as referred to supra, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be exercised only if the transfer of property has been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such condition has been violated. In the absence of such a condition in the deed of transfer, the authorities functioning under the Act have no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the transfer. The relevant portion with regard to unilateral cancellation is extracted hereunder;

                   “46.The writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is filed by the daughter of the second respondent to quash the order passed by the first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The gift deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was unilaterally cancelled by the second respondent father. The settlement deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent, dated 06.03.2015 is irrevocable and it is a deed of settlement out of love and affection. The second respondent has specifically stated that he has no right to revoke the settlement deed. From the recitals, the settlement does not attract Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz., the second respondent, has not put any condition. In other words, the gift deed is not subject to any condition or terms that the transferor shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the second respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for invoking the power provided to the second respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Even though we agree that the writ petition can be allowed, this Court is unable to decide the writ petition in this batch where question referred to us is different. Hence, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6889 of 2020 is de-linked and the Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.”

                   [Emphasis supplied]

9. With regard to the applicability of the Act, this Court in M.M.Ramesh's case has held that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

                   “11.From the law enunciated in the decisions, referred supra, it is luculent that the Act shall be applicable only to transfer of property after the commencement of the Act and it cannot be given retrospective effect.”

10. In the case on hand, a perusal of the settlement deed dated 26.12.2007, does not disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to maintain the executant as a pre-condition for transfer of the property. Therefore, the essential requirement for involving Section 23(1) of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first respondent could not have exercised the power of cancellation under the Act.

11. In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3521762/2025/C1 dated 29.08.2025, is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 26.12.2007, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.