(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order in Moo.Mu.No.098/2024/A1 dated 19.8.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 3rd respondent not to entertain any document pertaining to the property in S.No.7, Old S.No.122/1-Part, Block No.12, Ward No.41, Coimbatore Corporation, KRG Nagar Part-1 Plot No.38 for an extent of 2975 sq.ft (6 cents 361 sq.ft).)

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the first respondent whereby, the settlement deed dated 30.09.2021 executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the first petitioner came to be cancelled.

2. The first petitioner is the second wife of Albert @ Anbhalhaghan. Petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughters. The fourth respondent is the first wife of the deceased Albert @ Anbhalhaghan. A suit was filed for partition and separate possession and in the suit, the parties had amicably settled the issue by entering into a settlement and as per the settlement, the fourth respondent released her half share in the suit property in favour of the first petitioner, however, the fourth respondent was reserved with life estate in the property during her life time.

3. Subsequently, the fourth respondent filed an Application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for cancellation of the settlement deed stating that the petitioners have not provided physical needs and also denied the right of resident. The first respondent passed the impugned cancellation of the settlement deed, necessitating the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

4. The fourth respondent, though served, has not chosen to appear either in person or through a counsel, despite the name having been printed in the cause list.

5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 have been duly considered.

6. The settlement deed is in the vernacular language and the learned counsel for the parties have orally translated the same in English and as per the translated version, there is no clause in the settlement deed for providing physical needs and basic amenities as condition precedent for executing the settlement deed.

7. A Division Bench of this Court, in R. Muniyammal v. The District Collector/Appellate Tribunal and others (W.A. No.935 of 2025, dated 28.04.2025), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684), held that, for satisfying the requirement under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is sufficient if the condition to maintain the senior citizen is implied. The Division Bench observed that such a condition need not be expressly stated in the settlement deed. Since the settlement deed in that case had been executed by the mother in favour of her son out of love and affection and for his better future, it held that there was an implied obligation on the son to maintain his mother. On that reasoning, the Division Bench held that an implied condition would satisfy the requirement of Section 23(1) of the Act.

8. The above decision of the Division Bench was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum- District Collector (W.P. No.4540 of 2022, dated 19.06.2025), in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The coordinate Bench examined the issue in detail and held that Section 23(1) requires the transfer of property to be subject to a specific condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs of the transferor. Such a condition cannot be presumed or implied.

9. The coordinate Bench analysed the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, and held that these decisions do not support the view that an implied condition is sufficient. It observed that Urmila Dixit was a case where both the gift deed and the accompanying promissory note expressly recorded the obligation of the donee to maintain the donor. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not dilute the requirement of an express condition.

10. The coordinate Bench also disagreed with the view taken in Mohamed Dayan v. District Collector, which held that love and affection could be treated as an implied condition. It observed that love and affection may be the motive for executing a gift or settlement deed, but it cannot be treated as the statutory condition contemplated under Section 23(1). The Court further held that it is not permissible to rewrite the statutory provision by substituting the words used by the legislature with the concept of an implied condition.

11. The coordinate Bench also considered the later Division Bench decisions in S. Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector and Easwaramoorthy v. Paranthaman, which accepted the theory of implied conditions. It held that those decisions were inconsistent with the earlier Division Bench judgments as well as the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relying on the principles governing judicial precedents, the coordinate Bench concluded that the earlier decisions and the judgments of the Supreme Court must prevail.

12. Applying the above principles to the facts before it, the coordinate Bench held that where the settlement deed contains no specific condition requiring the transferee to maintain the transferor, proceedings under Section 23(1) of the Act are not maintainable, and the settlement deed cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the transferor was not cared for.

13. In the present case, the settlement deed does not contain any clause requiring the petitioners to provide maintenance, physical care, or basic amenities to the fourth respondent. Such a condition is essential for invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and seeking cancellation of a settlement deed.

14. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is legally unsustainable. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners are paying monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the fourth respondent and that she is residing in a portion of the subject property. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also undertaken that the fourth respondent will not be forcibly evicted from the said portion of the property.

15. In view of the above, the impugned order in Moo.Mu.No.098/2024/A1 dated 19.08.2024 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners shall continue to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the fourth respondent during her lifetime and shall not forcibly evict her from the portion of the subject property in her occupation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.