JUDGMENT : 1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the 2nd respondent invoking powers under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act' ), by which the settlement deed executed by the respondents 4 and 5 in favour of the petitioners were revoked and the properties were reconveyed to the parents. 2. The petitioners herein are the sons of the respondents 4 and 5. In the year 2013, Exts.P1 and P2 settlement deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners by their parents. The consideration stated in the deed is the love and affection that the parents had towards their progeny. However, there was no condition in the respective deeds for provision of basic amenities and for basic physical needs to the parent or senior citizen. Contending that the petitioners herein had neglected the parents, the party respondents approached the Maintenance Tribunal. An inquiry was conducted and Ext.P6 order was passed cancelling Exts.P1 and P2. 3. Sri. V.R.Gopu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order without conducting the mandatory conciliation proceedings as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. The learned counsel would also refer to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Ors. [ 2020 (5) KLT 533 ] and it was argued that the Tribunal could not have invoked powers under Section 23(1) as the jurisdictional fact which ought to have been taken note of by the Tribunal before invoking its powers was whether the condition as required under Section 23(1) of the Act for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs of a senior citizen has expressly stated in the document of transfer. 4. Sri.Rajesh P. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, submitted that the entire life savings of the party respondents were given to the petitioners and inspite of the above, they have been neglected. It is contended that these aspects were taken note of by the Tribunal while setting aside the documents. 4. Sri.Rajesh P. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, submitted that the entire life savings of the party respondents were given to the petitioners and inspite of the above, they have been neglected. It is contended that these aspects were taken note of by the Tribunal while setting aside the documents. Insofar as noncompliance of Rule 10 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that if this Court is inclined to set aside the order in the light of the law laid down in Subhashini (supra), the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal so that an attempt can be made to conciliate the dispute. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. It is undisputed that in Exts.P1 and P2, there is no reference to any provision for basic amenities and basic physical needs to the settlers. In that view of the matter, Ext.P6 order annulling the documents cannot be sustained. Since both sides submit that the Tribunal had not attempted to conciliate the dispute as mandated under Rule 10 of the Rules, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The party respondents may be permitted to modify the relief accordingly. This writ petition is disposed of.