G.Edwin Jeyaraj Alias Jeyaraj Pandian v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P(MD) No. 4441 of 2026 G.Edwin Jeyaraj Alias Jeyaraj Pandian .. Petitioner - Vs. -

1. The District Collector , Tenkasi District, Tenkasi, The Appellate Authority, (District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj),

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

3. Latha Mangeswari .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent has passed impugned order in O.MU.COLR/Aal/14769/2025, dated 27.01.2026 and to quash the same and consequently declare the execution of the settlement deed dated 16.10.2024 in Document No.1959/2024 and 1960/2024 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District as null and void. 1/6

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Rathina Vel Pandian For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Government Advocate for R1 and R2

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.06.2026 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed dated 16.10.2024, came to be dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the settlement deed dated 16.10.2024 was executed in favour of the third respondent under undue influence and coercion, and therefore the same is liable to be cancelled.

3. The petitioner approached the first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2/6

2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed on the ground that the third respondent had failed to provide him with basic amenities and physical needs.

4. The first respondent, after considering the provisions of the Act, dismissed the petition. The first respondent held that Section 23 of the Act contemplates transfer of property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. However, in the facts of the present case, the relationship between the parties is that of husband and wife, and the petitioner cannot invoke Section 23 of the Act against the third respondent in the manner sought for.

5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has independent means of livelihood and possesses sufficient movable and immovable properties. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent found no grounds to invoke Section 23 of the Act and consequently dismissed the petition.

3/6

6. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. However, if the petitioner is of the view that the settlement deed was obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation, it is always open to him to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court, which alone can adjudicate such disputed questions of fact.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for appropriate relief.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.06.2026 Index :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No PJL 4/6

To

1. The District Collector , Tenkasi District, Tenkasi, The Appellate Authority, (District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj),

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

5/6

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

PJL 04.06.2026 6/6