Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29020/2026 of Maragatham Vs The District Collector on 12 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011209242026}
Maragatham
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
The District Collector Office
Karur District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Revenue Divisional Office
Karur District.
3. The Thasildar
Thasildar Office
Karur District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records order passed by the relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Muu.Mu.229362(E4)/2026 dated 17.02.2026 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice Consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to re-consider the petitioners representation __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026
dated 21.05.2025, seeking cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.07.2008 executed in favor of the petitioners deceased son Mariyappan, and to restore the title and possession of the property in the name of the petitioner, in accordance with Section 23 of the said Act and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may be deem to fit and proper in the above circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s V.Balamurugan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Iniyan Karthik, GA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner is the mother of Mariyappan, who passed away after the execution of settlement deed dated 08.07.2008. Asserting that the said settlement deed contained an implied condition that the petitioner's son would maintain his parents, the petitioner had applied for cancellation of the settlement deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, read with the Rules framed thereunder.
2. Referring to the settlement deed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an implied condition relating to maintenance. He adds that the petitioner's daughter-in-law is not providing any maintenance or support, in spite of the fact that the __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026 petitioner is also a Class I legal heir.
3. Mr.S.Iniyan Karthik, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. Relying on the impugned order, he points out that a categorical finding was entered therein that the settlement deed was not conditional.
4. On perusal of the settlement deed, it is noticeable that the document records that it is being executed on account of the love and affection of the petitioner for her late son. The document proceeds to record that the petitioner has no right to make any claim in relation to the property or to seek the cancellation or modification thereof at any later point of time. Thus, there is no indication in the document that there is either an express or implied condition that the settlee should maintain the settlor. Considering this aspect, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. Nonetheless, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, as the mother of the deceased Mariyappan, the petitioner is one of the Class I legal heirs. In the capacity of a Class I legal heir of Mariyappan, the petitioner would be entitled to an equal share in the property along with the wife and children of Mariyappan. By leaving it open to the __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026 petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in relation thereto, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PKN To
1. The District Collector The District Collector Office Karur District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer The Revenue Divisional Office Karur District.
3. The Thasildar Thasildar Office Karur District. __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. pkn WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29020 of 2026 12-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )