Bindu & Anr. v. District Officer & Ors.

2026 KER 77464 · W.P.(C) No. 24102 of 2019 · Decided 8 October 2026

Bench: M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
Impugned orders: Order dated 18.08.2019 of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal (District Officer, Pathanamthitta) setting aside a settlement deed under S. 23(1) and directing eviction (Ext. P20); and order dated 16.09.2015 of the Maintenance Tribunal (RDO, Adoor) (Ext. P14)
Parties: Petitioners: the widow of the transferee (the senior citizen’s son) and her present husband. Contesting respondents: the senior citizen’s legal heirs and his grandson, in whose favour he executed a second settlement deed
Statutes: Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Ss. 16(1) and 23(1); Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 300A
Cases referred: Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode, 2020 (5) KHC 195 (FB) (followed); Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 (7) KHC 637 (SC) (followed); Antony Scaria v. District Collector, Kottayam, 2020:KER:6560, affirmed in 2020 (3) KHC 303 (DB) (distinguished); Chandrasekharan C.K. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (3) KHC 339 (DB); Sri. Venkataiah v. State of Karnataka, NC: 2026:KHC:6283
Counsel: For the petitioners: Mr. S. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Arun B. Varghese and Mr. R. Sanjay Sankar. For respondents 6 to 9: Mr. Surin George Ipe, with Mr. R. Azad Babu and Ms. Rejitha Rajan. Mr. Bijulal, Senior Government Pleader
Result: Writ petition allowed. Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal set aside; the senior citizen’s application under S. 23(1) dismissed

Catchwords

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — S. 23(1) — Cancellation of settlement deed — Twin conditions: (a) transfer subject to an express condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs; (b) refusal or failure to provide them — Deed reserving only a life interest — No such condition in the deed, and none pleaded in the application or in the civil suits — Held, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to cancel the deed. — Reservation of life interest is not an implied condition under S. 23(1) — Maintainability — Senior citizen’s second settlement deed in favour of his grandson, executed eight days after the cancellation order — Falls with that order — Death of the senior citizen — Writ petition by the transferee does not abate — Antony Scaria distinguished — Art. 300A — Transferee whose property rights are affected need not be relegated to a civil suit.

Short Note

A senior citizen settled his land and house on his son, keeping a life interest for himself. After the son’s death, his widow remarried. The senior citizen then went to the Maintenance Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the settlement deed under Section 23(1) and ordered the widow and her husband to vacate. The High Court set the orders aside. Section 23(1) applies only when the deed expressly makes the transfer subject to the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so. This deed had no such condition, and the senior citizen never claimed it did, either before the Tribunal or in his civil suits. Following the Full Bench in Subhashini, a mere reservation of life interest is not such a condition. Eight days after the cancellation, the senior citizen settled the property on his grandson; that deed rested on the cancellation order and falls with it. The writ petition did not abate on the senior citizen’s death, because it was filed by the transferee, whose property rights under Article 300A were affected. Antony Scaria, a petition by a senior citizen’s heirs, was distinguished.

Headnote

Section 23(1) needs both conditions to be met. The Tribunal may treat a transfer as void under S. 23(1) only if (a) the transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, and (b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide them. Only then is the transfer deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence, and voidable at the transferor’s instance (Sudesh Chhikara). [Paras 9, 12]
No such condition in the deed or the pleadings: no jurisdiction. The settlement deed contained no condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs. The senior citizen’s application did not allege such a condition or any failure to meet it; it said only that the petitioners had illegally obtained his property and residence. Neither of the two civil suits filed by him and his heirs alleged it either. The argument that the prescribed application form left no room to state these facts was rejected, since the form has a specific column for the reasons. The Maintenance Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. [Para 12]
Reserving a life interest is not an implied condition. Following the Full Bench in Subhashini, the S. 23(1) condition must be expressly stated in the transfer document. A mere reservation of life interest, or of the right to take usufructs, must be enforced against the beneficiary or a later transferee; S. 23(1) does not come to the transferor’s aid for that. No implied condition can be read in merely because the deed reserves a life interest. [Para 13]
A transfer made on the strength of the cancellation order falls with it. The contesting respondents argued that, since the property had been settled on the grandson before the writ petition was filed, the petitioners’ remedy was a suit for title. That was rejected. The senior citizen regained his rights only through the order of 18.08.2019 cancelling the first deed, and he passed those rights to his grandson on 26.08.2019. If the cancellation order is set aside, every document executed on its strength goes with it. A deed executed before the writ petition was filed does not bar a challenge to the order under Art. 226. [Para 15]
The writ petition does not abate on the senior citizen’s death; Antony Scaria distinguished. In Antony Scaria, the senior citizen’s legal heirs sought to pursue her personal statutory right under the Act, which is not heritable. Here the writ petition was filed by the transferee under the settlement deed, not by the senior citizen. A person whose property rights are affected by an order of a statutory authority may challenge it and need not be relegated to a civil suit. Denying that right would violate the right to property under Art. 300A. [Paras 16–17]
The grandson’s deed was hasty and the grandson a necessary party. The second settlement deed was executed in favour of the grandson only eight days after the cancellation order, plainly in haste to defeat the first petitioner’s rights. Even without any mala fides, that deed had no bearing on the legality of the cancellation order. As the property stood in his name when the petition was filed, the grandson was a necessary party and was rightly impleaded so he could contest. [Para 18]

Facts in Brief

13.02.2013The senior citizen executed a settlement deed in favour of his son for 64.320 cents with a residential building, reserving a life interest.
18.09.2013The son died. His widow (first petitioner) married the second petitioner in 2014; the senior citizen signed as a witness to the marriage.
08.12.2014The senior citizen applied to the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the deed and evict the petitioners.
16.09.2015The Tribunal directed review of the mutation and declared the senior citizen’s rights in the building for life, but did not set the deed aside.
23.12.2015The Appellate Tribunal refused to hear the petitioners’ appeal, holding that only a senior citizen may appeal under S. 16(1).
02.07.2018The High Court upheld that refusal but remitted the senior citizen’s own appeal for fresh decision.
18.08.2019The Appellate Tribunal set aside the settlement deed, cancelled the mutation and ordered the petitioners to vacate within a month.
26.08.2019The senior citizen settled the property on his grandson.
03.09.2019Writ petition filed; status quo ordered the next day.
14.12.2019The senior citizen died; his legal heirs and the grandson were impleaded in 2025.

Contentions

Petitioners

Section 23(1) applies only if the deed contains the maintenance condition and it is breached. The deed reserved only a life interest, and no such condition was pleaded before the Tribunal or in the civil suits. The parties had been on good terms, as the senior citizen supported the remarriage. The application was filed at the instigation of other relatives. The deed in the grandson’s favour falls if the cancellation order goes (Chandrasekharan C.K.).

Respondents 6 to 9 (legal heirs and grandson)

The property was settled on the grandson before the writ petition was filed, so the petitioners must sue for title. The petition abated on the senior citizen’s death, because his statutory right was personal and not heritable (Antony Scaria). Proceedings under the Act do not adjudicate title (Venkataiah). The prescribed application form left no room to state all the facts.

Order

The writ petition is allowed. The orders of the Maintenance Tribunal (16.09.2015) and the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal (18.08.2019) are set aside, and the senior citizen’s application under S. 23(1) is dismissed. [Para 20]

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.