(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 13.12.2023 made in Na.Ka.E2/7140/2021 and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the first respondent, whereby the settlement deed dated 23.08.2010 executed by the petitioner’s deceased father was cancelled.

2. The petitioner’s deceased father had filed a petition under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, “the Act”), stating that he had executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, conveying certain property to him, on the understanding that the petitioner would provide him with physical needs and basic amenities. According to him, the petitioner failed to do so.

3. The second respondent, after providing an opportunity of hearing, directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-, but declined to cancel the settlement deed. Aggrieved by the said order, the deceased father preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Act before the first respondent. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the settlement deed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Another, 2024 (14) SCC 225, while considering Section 23(1) of the Act, held that when both the conditions prescribed under the provision are satisfied, the transfer is, by legal fiction, deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor, and the Maintenance Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the transfer void.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in paragraph 15 that when a senior citizen transfers his or her property by way of gift, release or otherwise in favour of a near relative, a condition requiring the transferee to maintain the senior citizen cannot be presumed merely because of the relationship between the parties. Such a transfer may be made out of love and affection, without any expectation in return.

7. Therefore, when it is alleged that the transfer was subject to a condition that the transferee would maintain the senior citizen, the existence of such a condition must be established before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has also held that the transfer of property subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor-senior citizen is a sine qua non for invoking Section 23(1) of the Act.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.32907 of 2025, by order dated 20.07.2026, has considered the issue and held as follows:

                   “5. 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 basis, the Division Bench held that an implied condition would satisfy the requirement of Section 23(1) of the Act.

                   6. 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 basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. Such a condition cannot be presumed or implied.

                   7. The coordinate Bench analysed the decisions of the Hon’ble 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 was 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court did not dilute the requirement of an express condition.

                   8. 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.

                   9. The coordinate Bench also considered the subsequent 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. Applying the principles governing judicial precedents, the coordinate Bench concluded that the earlier decisions and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court must prevail.

                   10. Applying the above principles to the facts of that case, 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.”

9. A Full Bench of this Court, in Sasikala . v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2022 SCC OnLine 4343, has also held that where the gift deed does not contain a term or condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, there is no scope for invoking the powers under Section 23 of the Act.

10. Admittedly, in the present case, the settlement deed does not contain any condition requiring the petitioner to provide physical needs and basic amenities to his deceased father. Further, in the petition filed under Section 23 of the Act, the deceased father himself stated that the settlement deed was executed on the condition that the petitioner would provide him with physical needs and basic amenities. Therefore, the condition contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act has not been established. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cancelling the settlement deed is not sustainable in law.

11. The eighth respondent is the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner has undertaken to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-.

12. Having regard to the fact that the property conveyed to the petitioner under the settlement deed is valuable, this Court is of the view that the monthly maintenance payable to the eighth respondent requires to be enhanced.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the first respondent is set aside insofar as it cancels the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

14. The petitioner shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the eighth respondent during her lifetime, with effect from 01.07.2026. In the event of default in payment, the second respondent shall be at liberty to attach the property conveyed to the petitioner under the settlement deed and recover the arrears of maintenance in accordance with law.

15. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.