(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.12.2023 in Na.Ka.No.7915/2022/A1 of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 15.03.2024 in Pa.Mu.No.1696551/2024/U2 of the 1st respondent (Prayer amended as per order dated 25.10.2024 in W.M.P.No.34149 of 2024 in W.P.No.1893 of 2024))

1. The case on hand demonstrates the abuse to the provisions of the benevolent Act and the overreach by the authority constituted under the Act.

2. The facts which had given rise to the above sentiment are herein below set out.

                   (i) The petitioners before this Court are the first wife and daughter respectively of the 3rd respondent. They seek to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings 29.12.2023 in Na.Ka.No.7915/2022/A1. The proceedings before the 2nd respondent was based on a complaint made by the 3rd respondent on 22.12.2022. In the said complaint, the third respondent /senior citizen would submit that he is a resident at Pathanayakkan Palaiyam, S.S Coimbatore and with regard to the properties belonging to him as per the registered Partition Deed dated 27.07.1962, his legal heirs, namely the 2nd petitioner herein and his children through the 2nd wife, Angammal had executed a release deed dated 08.10.2014 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has further stated that when he was in dire need of finance, the 2nd petitioner, under the pretext of arranging a loan got executed a Settlement Deed dated 17.08.2016 fraudulently in her favour and grabbed the property. Since the property has been fraudulently taken away and as she is not maintaining him, the 3rd respondent requested the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and restore the property grabbed by her.

                   (ii) A very detailed reply had been made by the 2nd petitioner herein wherein she had narrated the manner in which the 3rd respondent had ignored her and her mother for over 16 years. The 2nd petitioner would submit that she was born to the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent on 12.06.1973. Immediately, after her birth, she and her mother were taken to her mother’s house in the village and left there. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent neither returned nor took care of either of them. The property which was described in the complaint measuring 4.15 acres is situate in Narayanapuram Village near Sendampalayam Village, where her mother was living. Her mother was cultivating the lands and maintaining the 2nd respondent and herself.

                   (iii) The 2nd petitioner would submit that her paternal uncle, one Kulanthai Gounder had influenced the petitioner’s father to obtain a loan and financial assistance from the government and had received the original documents from her father. All this happened in and around the year 1970. The petitioner’s mother continued to cultivate the lands.

                   (iv) While so, in the year 1980, her paternal Kulanthai Gounder came with some goondas and informed the 1st petitioner, her mother that she should not cultivate the lands and forcibly evicted her. The petitioner and her mother thereafter had to rely upon her maternal grandparents for their maintenance. In and around the year 1976, her father had started illegally living with one Angammal, which they came to learn only later. The petitioner would submit that, on account of lack of finance, she had to discontinue her school education and at the age of 17, had to work in a medical shop at R.S.Puram. With the income earned by her, she had completed her degree course and also qualified in a beautician course. Thereafter, she had obtained a job offer in the Maldives as a Spa Training Manager where she earned a good income. Thereafter, she returned to India and took up employment as a Spa Consultant for about 16 years in Wayanad. The petitioner would submit that, out her earnings, she had purchased her jewellery and two properties. Seventeen years after being deserted by him, the 2nd petitioner met her father at a relative’s marriage function.

                   (v) Meanwhile, it appears that Kulanthai Gounder had refused to return the original documents and had also managed to get a promissory note executed by the 2nd petitioner's father. Thereafter, the said Kulanthai Gounder had filed a suit O.S.No.655 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore and obtained an ex parte decree. Thereafter, he sought to execute the decree in E.P.No.645 of 1981, brought the property to Court auction and taken possession of the same by participating in the auction himself. Thereafter, the petitioners’ father had filed O.S.No.2629 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore to set aside the ex parte decree obtained by Kulanthai Gounder. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner’s father/3rd respondent had approached the petitioners and sought their pardon. He informed the petitioners that he had been cheated by the said Kulanthai Gounder. Believing him, the 2nd petitioner appears to have conducted the case on behalf of her father. The suit was dismissed and appeal in A.S.No.25 of 1997 was preferred before the I Additional Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The appeal was also dismissed against which, S.A.No.981 of 1999 was filed on the file of this Court and after contest, the second appeal was allowed. The entire litigation was handled by the 2nd petitioner herein. Challenging the judgment and decree in S.A.No.981 of 1999, the said Kulanthai Gounder had preferred S.L.P(Civil).No.19804 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also went against him. While the proceedings were pending, Kulanthai Gounder appears to have created several documents all of which were declared void by the Court.

                   (vi) The 2nd petitioner would submit that she had taken possession of the properties described in the complaint through the Advocate Commissioner. While taking possession, one Periasamy, in whose favour the sale deed has been executed came with henchmen and attacked the 2nd petitioner and her husband and her elder paternal uncle's son and damaged the car. However, they had registered a complaint against the 2nd petitioner and others including her father and they had to remain in hiding till they obtained anticipatory bail from this court.

                   (vii) The petitioner would submit that, at no point in time, did the sons of the third respondent through the 2nd wife come to his aid. Thereafter, out of remorse, the 3rd respondent decided to settle the property in question in favour of her mother, the 1st petitioner. For this purpose, he had obtained a release deed from the 2nd petitioner, his daughter and from his sons through the 2nd wife, in order to compensate them for having ignored them for all these years and for not having borne even the expenses of the 2nd petitioner's marriage. The said release deed was executed by the aforesaid persons on 08.10.2014 and on the very same day, the 3rd respondent had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner’s mother, the 1st petitioner in respect of the subject property while retaining for himself and his children through the 2nd wife an extent of 0.25 cents along with the house. It was only an agricultural land measuring 4.26 acres that had been given to her mother.

                   (viii) Two years later, the 1st petitioner had executed a gift deed dated 17.08.2016 in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the relationship between herself, her mother and, the 3rd respondent had become better, the 2nd petitioner was shocked to receive a copy of the complaint made by the 3rd respondent. She would submit that her father is not in a sound disposing state of mind and that the complaint has been instigated only by her father’s second wife and her children. She therefore sought to have the complaint dismissed.

                   (ix) It also transpires that the said Angammal and her two sons had instigated the 3rd respondent to file a suit O.S.No.230 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Coimbatore seeking to declare the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner's mother and the subsequent deed in her favour as null and void. This suit was filed in the year 2018. Thereafter, a Memo came to be filed stating that owing to his age and, personal age related inconvenience, the 3rd respondent herein did not wish to proceed with the suit and was not pressing the same. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as not pressed by judgment and decree dated 10.10.2023.

                   (x) It is during the pendency of this suit O.S.No.213of 2019 that the present complaint has come to be filed. The 2nd respondent, without taking into consideration the jurisdiction vested upon him and without taking into account the contents of the complaint, had proceeded to pass the impugned order which reads as follows:

                  

                  

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are now before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cancellation of the settlement deed is per se erroneous, inasmuch as the deed does not contain any condition with reference to the maintenance of the senior citizen and therefore, the order impugned is erroneous. In support of his argument, he relied upon the following judgments:

                  

4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the senior citizen/the 3rd respondent would submit that is not doubt true that the relief claimed in the complaint has been given a total go-by on a reading of the impugned order. However, he would submit that the order has been passed only on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that has been placed before the 2nd respondent. He would submit that Act, being a benevolent one, should be exercised in favour of the senior citizen. In support of his argument, he would rely upon the following judgments.

                   (i) 2025(5) CTC 502[N.Nagarajan and Others]

                   (ii) W.P(Md) Nos.18989, 22793 of 2021 and 282 of 2022 dated 12.11.2025[M.Vasanthi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and another]

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Before filing the complaint before the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent had filed a suit O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. It would be useful to refer to certain portions of the plaint in order to appreciate the case that had been put forward by the 3rd respondent in the said suit. The suit had been filed to declare the settlement deed executed on 08.10.2014 by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 1st petitioner as null and void, to declare the settlement deed executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 17.08.2016 as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd petitioner herein who has been arrayed as 1st defendant from encumbering the suit property.

7. In paragraph No.2 of the said plaint, the petitioner has stated as follows:

                   “The Plaintiff submits that the Suit schedule mentioned property are ancestral property obtained by the plaintiff as aforesaid through a Partition Deed dated 27.07.1962 and registered as Document No.1071/1962 on the file of the Sub Registrar of Annur and the said property has been allotted to the plaintiff under Schedule to the said Partition Deed. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property from then. In the year, 2014 the plaintiff intended to obtain a loan from the third party, wherein the financier instructed the plaintiff to obtain a release deed from the plaintiffs children for lending the amount. Therefore the plaintiff required the first defendant and his brothers R.Thangamani and R.Jothinathan to release their rights over the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff enabling him to deal with the suit property individually. Accordingly, a Release Deed dated 08.10.2014 was executed by the first defendant and her two brothers R.Thangamani and R.Jothinathan in favour of the plaintiff and the same has been registered as Document No.6382/2014 on the file of the Sub Registrar of Annur. By virtue of the said Release Deed and ever since from the date of execution of the said Release Deed the plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till this day without any let or hindrance.”

8. The 3rd respondent, in paragraph No.3, stated that he had recently come to know that the 2nd petitioner herein is dealing with the suit property individually and on perusing the encumbrance certificate, he came to learn that on the date of the release deed itself, a settlement deed had been executed by him in favour of the 1st petitioner herein on 08.10.2014. Based on this settlement deed, the 1st petitioner had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd respondent, as the plaintiff, submitted that these settlement deeds had been executed in a fraudulent manner and are to be declared as null and void.

9. Paragraph 5 of the said plaint would also make interesting reading which reads as follows:

                   “The plaintiffs submit that the defendants are inimical towards the second wife of the plaintiff and the two children namely R.Thangamani and R.Jothinathan. The plaintiff suspects that the idea of the defendants might be to prevent the second wife and her son from getting any share in the suit properties. The scheme of the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only recently when the first defendant trying to alienate the suit properties and the said factum came to the knowledge of the plaintiff through well wishers about the activities of the first defendant. The Settlement Deed dated 08.10.2014 and the subsequent Settlement Deed dated 17.08.2016 have been obtained from the plaintiff in a fraudulent manner with an intention to cheat the plaintiff and his second wife and their sons R.Thangamani and R.Jothinathan.”

10. A reading of this would clearly show the persons behind the plaint. Now, let us consider what has been filed before the 2nd respondent on 22.11.2022. The entire complaint is extracted herein below.

                  

                  

11. The complaint, therefore, would state:

                   a) The 3rd respondent has executed a settlement deed dated 17.08.2016 in favour of the 2nd petitioner.

                   b)The execution of the settlement deed was on account of the promise made by the 2nd petitioner that she would obtain a loan for the 3rd respondent, as he was undergoing a financial crunch.

                   c) The relief claimed is not for the cancellation of the deed but for maintenance and to restore the property fraudulently taken away.

The complaint is absolutely silent about the settlement deed that the 3rd respondent had executed in favour of the 1st petitioner. However, in the suit which has been filed 3 years earlier, the 3rd respondent would state that, in order to meet out certain financial liabilities, he had entered into the release deed dated 08.10.2014 with the 2nd petitioner and his sons through the 2nd wife. The 3rd respondent in the suit has further gone on to state that he is not aware of the execution of the settlement deed dated 08.10.2014 in favour of the 1st petitioner, as it has been fraudulently obtained on the very same day that the release deed had been executed.

12. The senior citizen has taken a contradictory stand in the suit and now in the complaint. It is also informed that the suit has now been withdrawn by the 3rd respondent after the institution of the said complaint. In the said suit, the 2nd petitioner had filed a detailed written statement in the same lines as the counter to the present complaint. It is thereafter that the suit was withdrawn as not pressed by the 3rd respondent.

13. The provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provide the following reliefs to a senior citizen:

                   1) Under Section 4 of the Act, a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or out of the property owned by him can file an application under Section 5 against his children or relative to maintain the senior citizen.

                   2) Section 23(1) further provides that where a senior citizen has transferred, by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the senior citizen and such a transferee fails to comply with the said condition, then the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence and at the option of the transferor namely the senior citizen, the transfer could be declared as void.

                   3) Section 23(2) further provides that where a senior citizen has a right to recover maintenance from his estate which has been transferred and the transfer is gratuitous and the transferee is also aware of the fact that the senior citizen is receiving maintenance from out of the estate, such right can be enforced against the transferee.

Therefore, under the Act, a senior citizen is entitled to maintenance, to have a transfer deed declared void if the deed contains a condition that has been violated and lastly, where the senior citizen is receiving maintenance from out of the property, then the transferee is bound to maintain the senior citizen, provided the transfer is gratuitous.

14. A mere perusal of the complaint filed would clearly show that there is no relief claimed for declaring the deed void. The 3rd respondent seeks to be maintained by the 2nd petitioner and seeks to have the property restored back to him. The senior citizen has gone on record to state that he has settled the property on the 2nd petitioner under the settlement deed dated 17.08.2016, which is an absolutely false statement, particularly when the plaint in O.S.No.213 of 2019 reads otherwise. The complaint appears to be a case of astute drafting, as the senior citizen is well aware that he will not be able to maintain the petition against the 1st petitioner, his wife, as she would not fall within the parameters of the Act and that apart, she herself is a senior citizen.

15. Even assuming, without admitting, that the senior citizen seeks to have the transfer declared void, a careful reading of the settlement deeds dated 08.10.2014 and 17.08.2016 would clearly indicate that there is no condition reserved for maintenance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments in Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi and Others (2024) SCC online SC 4245 and Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025) SCC online SC 2 have clearly spelt out that absence of the condition prescribed in section 23 of the act would clearly render a petition filed under the said provision as not maintainable. Further, the 3rd respondent has two sons apart from the 2nd petitioner and is living with them in his own house. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent, cancelling the document is ex facie erroneous. The 2nd respondent has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on him and has travelled beyond the complaint, by assuming to himself the jurisdiction of a civil Court in allowing the complaint. While allowing the complaint, he has failed to take note of the fact that the 1st petitioner, a senior citizen is sought to be thrown out of the property in question. The 2nd respondent is only exercising quasi judicial powers and his powers are well defined under the Act and he cannot exceed this remit.

16. A quasi-judicial function is an administrative function which law requires that the authority exercises it is some respect as if it were judicial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Indian National Congress(I) Vs Institute of Social Welfare and Others reported in 2002 (5) SCC 685 had observed that what distinguishes administrative function from quasi judicial function is, “the authority who acts Quasi judicially is required to act according to the Rules, whereas the authority who acts administratively is dictated by policy and expediency”. The Allahabad High Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2024 All 180 [Shivani Chaurasia and Others Vs State of U.P and Others] was considering a challenge to the order passed by District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp) on the ground that the authority did not possess the power to recall or review its order. After dismissing the law on the subject, the Learned Judge had observed in paragraph 10 as follows:-

                   “The rationale behind limiting the review powers of quasi judicial authorities lies in ensuring adherence to the principle of separation of powers and preserving the integrity of the legislative scheme. Quasi judicial authorities, being creatures of statute, must operate within the boundaries set forth by the legislature and therefore they cannot exceed their statutory mandate. Any attempt by quasi judicial authorities to exercise the power of review or recall outside the bounds of statutory authorization is inherently flawed and constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority. Such exercises of power are void ab initio , meaning they are null and void from the outset, and cannot be sustained in law.”

The instant order therefore is a clear case of overreach by the authority concerned. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, by no stretch of imagination, would advance their case. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2023 is quashed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.