CAUSE TITLE:
Mr N Nagarajan Vs. Mr. Schekar Raj
DATE OF ORDER:
27.09.2022
JUDGE:
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
PARTIES:
Petitioner: MR.N. Nagarajan and MRS. Saroja Nagarajan
Respondent: Mr. Schekar Raj
SUBJECT
After failing to look after their aged parents the madras high court upheld the judgement passed by the trial court and cancelled a settlement deed executed in the favour of the son, and dismissed the findings of the appellant court.
Brief facts
- The defendants have two sons and the first son the plaintiff currently resides in Australia and is doing well for himself.
- In 2012 the defendants expressed their desire to settle the property equally between their two sons so that after their demise there shouldn’t be any animosity between the two. There were certain conditions put forth as in the defendants shall be receiving rents till their lifetime and the deed will be executed on the condition that the plaintiff takes care of the defendants by providing necessary food, clothing, medical facilities etc, till their lifetime.
- The plaintiff agreed and was entrusted with the task of drafting the document and the defendants trusting the plaintiff signed the documents given by the plaintiff.
- Later on, the defendants fell sick and had to endure some hardship and as per the deed they sought for monetary help from the plaintiff, the plaintiff refused both the times. The defendants after recovering from the illness came to know that the plaintiff misrepresented the documents and illegally executed the settlement deed.
- The plaintiff deposited 3,00,000/- into the account of the 2nd defendant and claimed it was a transaction for the property.
- The trial court said that the deed was in the nature of a will and hence there is no need to dismiss it as it is itself void as it is a will.
- The additional court reversed the decision stating that the deed was not in the nature of a will and the payment of 3,00,000/- was a payment Made from the plaintiff to the defendant was for the sale of the property.
Legal Provision involved
- Section 23 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
This law gives a senior citizen power to approach and declare a certain specific transfer of property as void.
- Section 4 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
This section talks about the maintenance of a senior citizen, and it says that there is a obligation on a child to maintain their parents so that a senior may lead a normal life.
- Section 5 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act
- Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act
- Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act
ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF PLAINTIFF
- The plaintiff filed for a civil suit under the assistant city civil court Chennai, for the declaration that the deed on the file of sub-registrar is void and not binding
- The plaintiff argued that he was taking good enough care of the defendants, and on 23.01.2012 a settlement deed was registered and the defendants wilfully gave all the rights of the suit to the plaintiff and only retaining the life interest on the said property.
- The defendant’s cancellation deed which was filed on 27.03.2014 was hence void in nature as the defendants had transferred the right, title of the suit property already to the plaintiff. Hence the defendants are misusing and taking advantage of the cancellation deed and trying to dispose of the said property themselves.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF defendants
- The defendants wanted to equally settle the suit property among their two sons, the conditions laid down were to take care of the defendants need for water, food, shelter and medical expenses etc.
- The older son the plaintiff while knowing all the conditions mislead the defendants and took their signatures, and when there were some medical emergencies the plaintiff didn’t provide any monetary assistance, the plaintiff didn’t follow the obligation laid in front of him and hence the defendants have a right to cancel the said deed.
JUDGEMENT
- The honourable high court after observing the facts stated that, the special act always supersedes any other provisions and enactments.
- In this case the high court decided that even if the deed is considered a settlement deed, under S.23 of the maintenance act the deed can be declared void as the plaintiff failed to comply with the obligations of neglecting the medical needs of the defendant, and due to this abstinence from the imposed duties the plaintiff provided a reason for cancellation of the deed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
