Madras HC Restores Son’s Settlement Deed, Finding No Express Or Implied Promise To Maintain His Parents

In brief

The question

1. Whether the settlement deed could be cancelled under Section 23 of the 2007 Act in the absence of an express or implied condition requiring the petitioner to maintain his parents

The court held

The Court set aside the first respondent’s order insofar as it cancelled the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner.

It also directed

It directed that the petitioner must not disturb the parents’ possession, as required by the RDO’s order, and preserved the parents’ right to take necessary measures to enforce that order in the event of non-compliance.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The dispute concerned a property at Ariyamangalam, Tiruchirappalli, and a settlement deed dated 11 November 2021 in favour of the petitioner.

pp. 2–4, 6–7

The petitioner challenged the first respondent’s order cancelling that deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as well as an earlier Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 24 September 2025.

pp. 2–4, 6–7

The petitioner had not appealed the RDO’s order; the parties agreed it remained unchallenged.

p. 4 · p. 7

The High Court examined the settlement deed and found no express or implied condition requiring the petitioner to maintain his parents.

pp. 2–4, 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the settlement deed could be cancelled under Section 23 of the 2007 Act in the absence of an express or implied condition requiring the petitioner to maintain his parents

pp. 4, 6–7

ii.2. Whether setting aside the cancellation order affected the parents’ ability to enforce the unchallenged RDO order

p. 4 · p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits a transfer to be declared void where it is subject to a condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee refuses or fails to do so.

p. 6

The Court relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Another, (2024) 14 SCC 225, and Ayyanar v. District Collector, Madurai District, 2025 CWC 1 309, in addressing the requirement of an express or implied maintenance condition for relief under Section 23.

p. 6

The Court also held that the petitioner remained bound by the unchallenged RDO order and that the parents could take measures to enforce it.

p. 4, 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 23

04Reasoning

The settlement deed did not contain an express or implied condition requiring the petitioner to maintain his parents.

pp. 4, 6–7

The Court therefore concluded that the first respondent could not cancel the deed under Section 23 on the basis of the parents’ allegations.

pp. 4, 6–7

However, because the petitioner had not challenged the RDO’s earlier order, setting aside the cancellation did not release him from his obligation to comply with that order.

p. 4, 7

The parents remained entitled to pursue its enforcement if he failed to comply.

p. 4, 7