2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 17 / 08 / 2026

DELIVERED ON : 08 / 09 / 2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A. (MD) NOS. 3268 & 3269 OF 2025

AND

C.M.P. (MD) NO.20393 OF 2025

IN

W.A. (MD) NO.3268 OF 2025

AND

C.M.P. (MD) NO.20394 OF 2025

IN

W.A. (MD) NO.3269 OF 2025

W. A. (MD) No.3268 of 2025

M.Vasanthi,

W/o.Late. Muralidharan,

Permanently residing at

C-96, 10

th

A Cross, Thillai Nagar,

West Extension, Trichy- 620 018

Now Residing at

No.24, Cauvery Nagar,

Managamma Nagar, Srirangam,

Trichy-620 006. ... Appellant /

Writ Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector,

Trichy (Acting as the Appellate Tribunal under

Central Act 56/2007) Collector Office,

Raja Colony, Trichy-620 001.

Page No.1 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

RDO Office, Old Collector Office,

Trichy- 620 001. ... Respondents 1&2 /

Respondents 1 & 2

3. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai (Died) ... 3

rd

Respondent /

3

rd

Respondent

4. N.Manorama Devi,

W/o.Late. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai,

5. N.Lakshmi Priya,

D/o.Late. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai,

Respondents 4 & 5 are residing at

C-21, 11

th

Cross West, Prathi Abodes,

Door No.C2, 2

nd

Floor, West Extension,

Thillai Nagar, Trichy- 620 018. ... Respondents 4 & 5 /

legal representatives of

deceased 3

rd

Respondent

Note: Cause title is accepted vide

Order dated December 18, 2025

made in C.M.P. (MD).Nos.20098

& 20099 of 2025 in W.A. (MD)

S.R. Nos.108466 & 108467 of

2025 respectively.

PRAYER in W. A. (MD) No.3268 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated

November 12, 2025 made in W.P. (MD) No.22793 of 2021 on the file of

this Court.

Page No.2 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

PRAYER in C.M.P. (MD) No.20393 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous

Petition filed praying to stay the operation of the Order dated November

12, 2025, passed in W.P. (MD) No.22793 of 2021, pending disposal of

the Writ Appeal and pass such further or other Orders this Court deems

fit in favour of petitioner.

W. A. (MD) No.3269 of 2025

1. M.Vasanthi,

W/o.Late. Muralidharan,

2. Rajeevi Ar.Murali,

S/o.Late. Muralidharan

3. Sodasi Ar.Murali,

S/o.Late. Muralidharan ... Appellants /

Respondents 3 to 5

All are permanently residing at

C-96, 10

th

A Cross,

Thillai Nagar,

West Extension, Trichy – 620 018.

Now residing at

No.24, Cauvery Nagar,

Managamma Nagar, Srirangam,

Trichy – 620 006.

Versus

1. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai (Died) ...1

st

Respondent /

Writ Petitioner

2. The District Collector,

Trichy (Acting as the Appellate Tribunal under

Central Act 56/2007) Collector Office,

Raja Colony, Trichy-620 001.

Page No.3 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

RDO Office, Old Collector Office,

Trichy- 620 001. ... Respondents 2&3 /

Respondents 1 & 2

4. N.Manorama Devi,

W/o.Late. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai

5. N.Lakshmi Priya,

D/o.Late M.M.Nagarajah Pillai ... Respondents 4 & 5 /

legal representatives of

the Writ Petitioner

Respondents 4 & 5 are residing at

C-21, 11

th

Cross West, Prathi Abodes,

Door No.C2, 2

nd

Floor, West Extension,

Thillai Nagar, Trichy- 620 018.

Note: Cause title accepted vide

Order dated December 18, 2025

made in C.M.P. (MD).Nos.20098

& 20099 of 2025 in W.A. (MD)

S.R. Nos.108466 & 108467 of

2025 respectively.

PRAYER in W. A. (MD) No.3269 of 2025: Writ Appeal filed under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated

November 12, 2025 made in W.P. (MD) No.282 of 2022 on the file of

this Court.

PRAYER in C.M.P. (MD) No.20394 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous

Petition filed praying to stay the operation of the Order dated November

12, 2025, passed in W.P. (MD) No.282 of 2022, pending disposal of the

Writ Appeal and pass such further or other Orders this Court deems fit in

favour of petitioner.

Page No.4 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

For Appellant:Mr. R.Vigneshwaran

For Respondent

Nos.1 & 2 in

WA(MD).No.

3268/2026

For Respondent

Nos.2 & 3 in

WA(MD).No.

3269/2026

:

Mr. K.K.Udaya Kumar

Government Advocate

(civil side)

For Respondent

Nos.4 & 5 in

both Writ

Appeals

:Mr.A.V.Arun

for

Mr.M.Prabakaran

* * *

COMMON JUDGMENT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These Writ Appeals are filed at the instance of the petitioner in

W.P. (MD) No.22793 of 2021 and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.

(MD) No.282 of 2022, challenging the Common Order dated November

12, 2025 passed therein by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Both the Writ Petitions were filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari,

praying to quash the Order passed by the District Collector, Trichy in Na.

Ka. No.G1 / 31377 / 2021 dated December 09, 2021.

Page No.5 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

3. To be noted, the Writ Court heard the matter jointly, reserved for

Orders on September 23, 2025 and pronounced the Order on November

12, 2025. In the interregnum, the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD). No.282 of

2022 and third respondent in W.P. (MD).No.22793 of 2021, namely

M.M. Nagarajah Pillai passed away on October 28, 2025. Therefore, his

legal heirs are arrayed as parties in these Writ Appeals. Separate

applications seeking to accept the cause titles to the Writ Appeals were

filed and the same were ordered by this Court vide Order dated December

18, 2025 in C.M.P. (MD) Nos.20098 & 20099 of 2025 in W.A. (MD)

S.R. Nos.108466 & 108467 of 2025.

BRIEF FACTS NECESSARY TO DISPOSE OF THE WRIT

APPEALS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

4. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai and N.Manorama Devi are husband and

wife. In their wedlock, they had one daughter - N.Lakshmi Priya and one

son - N.Muralidharan. Said N.Muralidharan married one M.Vasanthi who

is the first appellant in both the Writ Appeals. In their wedlock, they have

two sons namely Rajeevi Ar.Murali and M.A.Ashok Nagaraj and one

daughter namely Sodasi Ar.Murali. M.M.Nagarajah Pillai out of love and

affection executed two Gift Settlement Deeds even dated September 16,

2013 in favour of his son - N.Muralidharan vide Document Nos.3168 and

Page No.6 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

3169 of 2013 in respect of two shops in Door Nos.307 and 308 situate at

Big Bazaar Street, Trichy. On December 04, 2019, N.Muralidharan

passed away. Thereafter, dispute arose between the father-in-law -

M.M.Nagarajah Pillai on one side and daughter-in-law - Vasanthi and her

children on the other side.

4.1. According to the father-in-law - M.M.Nagarajah Pillai, the

shops in Door No.306 to 309 situate at Big Bazaar Street, Trichy are all

his self-acquired and personal properties, and likewise, the property

situate in Door No.71, Valaiyalkara Street is also his self-acquired

property. While so, out of love and affection and with the fond hope that

his son, daughter-in-law and their children would take care of him and

his wife - N.Manorama Devi, he executed the aforesaid two Gift

Settlement Deeds in favour of his son. However, after the demise of his

son - N.Muralidharan on December 4, 2019, the daughter-in-law -

Vasanthi refused to take care of him and his wife and also tried to

alienate and encumber the aforesaid properties. Hence, the father-in-law

- M.M.Nagarajah Pillai filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Trichy under Section 3 read with Section 5 of 'the Maintenance

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [Central Act No.56

of 2007]' (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2007 Act') inter-alia seeking (i)

Page No.7 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

cancellation of the aforesaid two Settlement Deeds, (ii) direction not to

encumber or alienate the said shops in Door Nos.306 to 309 as well as

the said property in Door No.71, (iii) direction not to dispose of the

stocks in the said shops in Door Nos.306 to 309 and not interfere with

the smooth functioning of those shops and (iii) handover possession of a

rental premises in Thillai Nagar to M.M.Nagarajah Pillai for in turn

handing over to the landlord. After hearing both sides, the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Trichy vide his proceedings in Na. Ka.

No.A1/1649/2020 dated August 09, 2021, ordered as follows:

"i)The father-in-law shall not claim any right or

possession over the property covered under the

settlement deed dated September 16, 2013 i.e.,

Door Nos.307 and 308 and shall not interfere with

the respondent's possession over the same.

ii) The daughter-in-law - M.Vasanthi shall hand over

possession of Door Nos.306 and 309 within 30

days from the date of the order, failing which the

authority shall consider to cancel the gift

settlement deed.

iii) As far as Door No.71, Valaiyalkara Street is

concerned, the daughter-in-law is entitled to enjoy

the same without making any encumbrance. The

Page No.8 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

father-in-law shall not cause any interference with

her such enjoyment.

iv) In case, the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law

want to alienate any of the aforesaid property,

they have to alienate their respective share alone.

v) As far as the rental premises in Thillai Nagar is

concerned, the father-in-law has no right over the

same. Further, there is a case is pending before

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy between

the landlord and M.Vasanthi. The father-in-law

has no right over the said property."

5. Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Trichy, the daughter-in-law - M.Vasanthi filed a Writ Petition in

W.P. (MD) No.18989 of 2021. Further, feeling aggrieved the same Order,

the father-in-law preferred an Appeal under Section 16 of the 2007 Act

before the Appellate Tribunal / District Collector, Trichy, who after

hearing both sides, vide their Order dated December 09, 2021 dismissed

the said Appeal and thereby confirmed the Order passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, while the

appellant therein / father-in-law - M.M.Nagarajah Pillai preferred the

Page No.9 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.282 of 2022 before this Court, the

respondent therein namely M.Vasathi preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.

(MD) No.22793 of 2021.

6. The aforesaid three Writ Petitions were heard jointly and the

learned Single Judge passed a Common Order dated November 12, 2025

dismissing all the three Writ Petitions and directing the daughter-in-law

and her children to vacate and handover possession of Door Nos.306 and

309 within a period of one month from the date of the said Order.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the daughter-in-law and her children have

preferred the instant Writ Appeals.

7. It is hereby clarified that, Respondents 4 & 5 herein/Legal heirs

of Late.M.M.Nagarajah Pillai did not prefer any Appeal over the Writ

Court's Order, the dispute before this Court is limited to the direction of

the Writ Court against the daughter-in-law and her children to handover

possession of the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309.

ARGUMENTS

8. Mr.R.Vigneshwaran, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants in both Writ Appeals would submit that, after the demise of

Page No.10 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

her husband - N.Muralidharan, the first appellant namely M.Vasanthi is

alone taking care of her two sons and one daughter including their

educational needs. Her parents-in-laws have sufficient wealth and

properties to maintain themselves. In these circumstances, only with a

view to give trouble to their daughter-in-law and grant children, they

filed the aforesaid petition under the 2007 Act before the Revenue

Divisional Officer falsely as if he had no wherewithal to maintain himself

and his wife.

8.1. Further, he would submit that the daughter-in-law filed a Suit

for partition in O.S. No.366 of 2021 on the file of the District Court,

Trichy and the same is pending. Further, she also filed a Suit for

permanent injunction in O.S. No.256 of 2020 on the file the Sub-Court,

Trichy and the same is also pending. In these circumstances, the

Appellate Tribunal as well as the Original Authority / Revenue

Divisional Officer ordered for delivery of possession without any

jurisdiction or power to do so. Hence, their Order qua delivery of

possession having been passed without jurisdiction is liable to be set

aside.

Page No.11 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

8.2. Further, the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309 are ancestral

properties in which M.Vasanthi and her children have rights. The learned

Single Judge failed to consider these aspects and directed the daughter-

in-law and her children to deliver possession of the shops in Door No.

306 and 309, which is not justifiable. Accordingly, he would pray to

allow the Writ Appeals and set aside the Order of the learned Single

Judge qua the direction to the daughter-in-law and her children to deliver

possession of the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309 to the father-in-law.

9. Opposing these submissions, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned Counsel

representing Mr.M.Prabhakaran, Counsel on record for the Respondent

Nos.4 & 5, who are the legal heirs of the father-in-law - M.M.Nagarajah

Pillai, would argue that the authorities under the 2007 Act, while dealing

with the maintenance petitions filed under Section 5 thereof, have every

power to order delivery of possession. He would further submit that there

are four shops in Shop Nos.306 to 309 and they are all self-acquired

properties of the father-in-law - M.M.Nagarajah Pillai. Considering these

facts, the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal ordered

delivery of possession of the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309. The

learned Single Judge rightly confirmed the same. Though the father-in-

law - M.M.Nagarajah Pillai passed away before pronouncement of the

Page No.12 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

Order by the learned Single Judge, his wife - N.Manorama Devi is

entitled to get the benefit of the Order. There is no irregularity or

illegality in the Orders passed by the authorities constituted under the

2007 Act as well as the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he would pray

to dismiss the Writ Appeals.

DISCUSSION

10. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused

the materials available on record.

11. The central question before this Court is whether the

authorities constituted under the 2007 Act have the power to order

delivery of possession. The said question is no more res integra and has

been settled by a line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The

recent one being the Judgment dated August 04, 2026 in Ravi Kant

Gupta -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh in S.L.P. (civil) Diary No.22768 of

2024, wherein referring to three earlier Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, it was observed as hereunder:

''10. … It is a well-settled legal proposition

that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it

impliedly also grants the power of doing all such

Page No.13 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

acts, or employing such means, as are essentially

necessary to its execution. On this analogy, we

have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal

under the Act has power to order eviction in order

to ensure the maintenance or protection of a

senior citizen.

11. It is noteworthy that a three-judge bench

of this Court while dealing with claims arising out

of the provisions of the Act and the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 held

that the tribunal under the Act may have the

authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and

expedient to ensure the maintenance and

protection of a senior citizen or a parent. It was

further held that eviction would be an incident of

enforcement of right to maintenance and

protection. Taking into account the aforesaid

observations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court

held that tribunal under the Act may order

eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure

the protection of senior citizens. Another two-

Judge bench of this Court reiterated the same

view.''

12. In the context of the present case, eviction of the daughter-in-

law and her children from the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309 and further

Page No.14 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

directing them to deliver possession of the same in favour of the father-

in-law, is incidental to the enforcement of his maintenance rights along

with that of his wife - N.Manoramadevi. Moreover, the daughter-in-law

and her children are currently in possession and enjoyment of the shops

in Door Nos.307 and 308 on the strength of the two Settlement Deeds

executed by father-in-law. When they currently have two shops for

themselves, it is not right to hold on to the rest as well while the father-

in-law is seeking to enforce his maintenance rights. Hence, the learned

Single Judge is legally right and justifiable in dismissing the Writ

Petitions and directing the daughter-in-law and her children to surrender

possession of the shops in Door Nos.306 and 309 to the father-in-law -

M.M.Nagarajah Pillai. Since the father-in-law - M.M.Nagarajah Pillai

passed away, his wife - N.Manoramadevi who is also a maintenance

holder, is entitled to get the benefit of the Order. Hence, this Court does

not find any irregularity or illegality with the Order passed by the learned

Single Judge. Therefore, both the Writ Appeals are liable to be

dismissed.

13. Before parting, it is hereby clarified that that the above

arrangement is however only an arrangement for the time being for

Page No.15 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

protecting the maintenance rights of the mother-in-law. As stated supra, a

Partition Suit filed by the daughter-in-law and her children is pending

before the District Court, Trichy. The parties are at liberty to work out

their final rights before the Civil Court in the said Partition Suit. They are

at liberty to raise all the contentions raised in the Writ proceedings and

they shall be dealt with on their own merit as per law untrammelled and

uninfluenced by the Orders of this Court in the Writ proceedings. Until

the rights of the parties are conclusively decided by the Civil Court, the

aforesaid interim arrangement of delivery of possession of the shops in

Door Nos.306 and 309 shall hold good.

CONCLUSION

14. Resultantly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed with the above

observations. The Stay Petitions in C.M.P. (MD) Nos.20393 & 20394 of

2025, filed by the appellant shall stand closed. In view of the facts and

circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V,J)

08 / 09 / 2026

Index : Yes

Speaking Order : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

gvn

Page No.16 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

To:

1. The District Collector,

Trichy (Acting as the Appellate Tribunal under

Central Act 56/2007) Collector Office,

Raja Colony, Trichy-620 001.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

RDO Office, Old Collector Office,

Trichy- 620 001

Page No.17 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3662W. A. (MD) Nos. 32 68 & 3 26 9 of 2 02 5

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

gvn

COMMON JUDGMENT

MADE IN

W.A. (MD) NOS.3268 & 3269 OF 2025

08 / 09 / 2026

Page No.18 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis