D. DEVI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals are directed against the Common Order, dtd. 22/11/2019 in W.P. Nos.10849 and 26810 of 2017. The Appellant was the Petitioner in the said Writ Petitions. In W.P. No.10849 of 2017, the Petitioner assailed the Cancellation Deed, dtd. 14/12/2012 bearing Document No.8693 of 2012 executed by the Third Respondent (the Cancellation Deed) to cancel the Settlement Deed, dtd. 25/8/2009 bearing Document No.5815 of 2009 (the Settlement Deed) in respect of the property ad-measuring 4950 sq.ft. in T.S. No.8, Ward No.9, Block No.14 at Kanagapalayam Village in S. No.138/1A, Sub-Division 138/1A1A at No.27, Sardar Street Extension, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District (the Property), and prayed that the Sale Agreement, dtd. 12/12/2016 bearing Document No.9430 of 2016 (the Sale Agreement) be quashed. The second limb of the prayer was, however, rendered infructuous by the cancellation of the Sale Agreement on 10/5/2017. In W.P. No.26810 of 2017, the Petitioner challenged the proceedings of the First Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer (the RDO) culminating in Order, dtd. 27/9/2017 in Na.Ka. No.2194/2017/A3 endorsing the cancellation. The Writ Court dismissed both the Writ Petitions with Costs of Rs.15,000..00

(2.) The Petitioner is the Daughter of the Third Respondent, Mr. V. Durairaj. The Third Respondent purchased the Property under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 15/12/1986 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Udumalpet. Thereafter, he settled the said property in favour of his Daughter/Petitioner/ Appellant herein under the Settlement Deed. Later, the Appellant came to know that her father unilaterally cancelled the Settlement Deed by the Cancellation Deed. The Appellant also came to know that the Third Respondent executed the Sale Agreement in favour of one Paramasivam. W.P. No.10849 of 2017 was filed, in those facts and circumstances, to assail the above documents.

(3.) Shortly after W.P. No.10849 of 2017 was filed, in July 2017, the Third Respondent filed a Petition under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Senior Citizens Act) before the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, i.e. the First Respondent/RDO, Udumalpet. In the said Petition, the Third Respondent alleged that the Appellant did not maintain her Parents and, therefore, requested the First Respondent/RDO to declare that the Settlement Deed executed in favour of the Appellant is void. By Order, dtd. 27/9/2017, the First Respondent held that the Settlement Deed is invalid. W.P. No.26810 of 2017 was filed challenging the said Order. While dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Writ Court noticed Sec. 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and accepted the contention of the Third Respondent that the Petitioner/ Appellant had not taken care of her parents. On the basis of the said conclusion, the Writ Court held that the cancellation of the Settlement Deed was valid and that the Petitioner had not made out a case to interfere with such cancellation or with the Order of the First Respondent in respect thereof.