Madras High Court
WP(MD)/26490/2026 of Khader Hussain M Vs The Appellate Tribunal for M on 28 October 2026
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.
__________
( 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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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
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, __________
( 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. __________
( 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 __________
( 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 __________
( 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 __________
( 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 __________
( 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 __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 12:44:43 pm )