Khader Hussain M vs The Appellate Tribunal for M

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011274492026}
WMP (MD) No.19965 of 2026
Khader Hussain M
S/o. Mohammed Yusuf,
No.5/42, 9th Street,
Bharathidasan Nagar,
North Kattur,
Trichy - 620 019.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens /
The District Collector,
Trichy District.
2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate / Revenue
Divisional Officer
Revenue Division,
Thiruchirappalli.
3. Mohammed Yusuf
S/o. Bashu,
No.20, KVK Samy Street,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Ariyamangalam,
Trichy - 620 010.
4. Najima Begum
W/o. Mohamed Yusuf,
No.20, KVK Samy Street,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Ariyamangalam,
Trichy - 620 010.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent
herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka. G.1/4003699/2025 dated 10.08.2026
and the prior order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his
proceedings in Moo.Mu.(A1)/4163/2025 dated 24.09.2025 and quash the
same as illegal and arbitrary and pass such further or other orders as this
Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s T. Senthil Kumar
For Respondent(s) :Mr.S.Iniyan Karthik, GA
for R1 & R2
A.Joel Paul Antony for R3 & R4
ORDER
A property admeasuring 1369 square feet in Survey No. 195/2, Plot
No. 552 at Ariyamangalam Village, Kamarajar Nagar, Tiruchirappalli,
originally belonged to the petitioner's paternal grandmother, namely,
Kadhar Beevi. According to the petitioner, said property was mortgaged
by his grandmother with the Trichy Cooperative Building Society. The
petitioner claims that he discharged the loan in April 2000. The petitioner
states further that a settlement deed was executed on 17.05.2000 by the
petitioner's grandmother in favour of the petitioner's father. Thereafter,
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
the property was once again mortgaged with the Srirangam Cooperative
Housing Society.
2. Relying on the bank statement and discharge receipt, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner discharged the loan
and that a settlement deed was executed in favour of the petitioner solely
on account of the close relationship between the parties, in lieu of a sale
deed. He adds that a separate settlement deed was executed on
22.08.2024 by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner's sister.
Learned counsel also submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer had
passed an order on 24.09.2025 and that the petitioner did not appeal
against said order because he does not intend to dispossess his father and
mother from the property concerned.
3. In response to these contentions, learned counsel for the third
and fourth respondents submits that the petitioner violated the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer. He also points out that the petitioner
harassed his parents and that they were constrained to seek police
protection. He submits that the first respondent cancelled the settlement
deed in these facts and circumstances.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
4. The agreed position is that the order of the second respondent
dated 24.09.2025 was not challenged by the petitioner. Consequently, the
petitioner is under an obligation to comply with the directions set out
therein. In case of non-compliance, the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, contains provisions for
enforcement.
5. On perusal of settlement deed dated 11.11.2021, I find that it is
recorded therein, in the relevant part, as under:
“ ,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l;Lf;F gpujpgydhf
cd;dplk; ,Ue;J bjhif vJt[k; ehd; bgw;Wf; bfhs;stpy;iy.
,dp ,e;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuj;ij uj;J bra;a vdf;F
mjpfhukpy;iy.
,jw;F Mjuthf vdJ bgaupy; Vw;gl;l nkw;go
brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuj;jpd ; efy; kw;Wk ; mjpy; fz;l ,ju
\yhjut[fspd; efy;fisa[k; cd; trk; xg;gilj;J tpl;nld;.
,e;jg;gof;F rk;kjpj;J vd; KG kndhuhrpapy; ehd;
vGjpf;bfhLj;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuk; ,JthFk;. ”
6. I find no express or implied condition in such settlement deed
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
enabling the cancellation thereof by the first respondent by resorting to
Section 23 of the above-mentioned statute. On this issue, learned counsel
for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudesh
Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Another , (2024) 14 SCC 225 and the
judgment in Ayyanar v. District Collector, Madurai District , 2025 CWC
1 309.
7. In the absence of either an express or implied condition in the
settlement deed to maintain the parents, the settlement cannot be
cancelled by exercising powers under Section 23 of the statute.
Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside to the
extent that the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
8. This order will not, however, stand in the way of the third and
fourth respondents taking all necessary measures to enforce the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer if the petitioner fails to comply therewith.
The petitioner shall not disturb the possession of the third and fourth
respondents, as directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer earlier.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PKN
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
To
1. The Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens /
The District Collector
Trichy District
2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer
Revenue Division
Thiruchirappalli
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )

WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN
WP(MD) No. 26490 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )