JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. The petitioner, who is stated to be the adopted son of the 5 th respondent herein, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P6 order issued by the 2 nd respondent herein, by which a settlement deed at Ext.R5(c) stood cancelled at the instance of the 5 th respondent herein, who had submitted Ext.P1 application. 2. Heard Sri.R.Divakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This Court notices that the 2 nd respondent has issued Ext.P6 order, seeking to cancel Ext.R5(c), on the basis of an application at Ext.P1. The allegation contained in Ext.P1 is essentially to the effect that the petitioner has not taken care of the 5 th respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [ 2022 (7) KHC 637 ] and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 195 ] , wherein it is held that the requirement for providing the basic amenities/basic physical needs to a senior citizen have to be expressly stated in the document of transfer. In the case at hand, Ext.R5(c), on a prima facie consideration, does not contain any such recitals as per which it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have extended the required basic amenities/physical needs to the executor of the document at Ext.R5(c) – the 5 th respondent herein. 5. In the afore circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order at Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. 6. True, this Court notices that subsequently, the 6 th respondent, who is related to the 5 th respondent herein, has filed a civil suit against the petitioner as O.S.No.55 of 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, as of now, the petitioner is continuing in occupation, insofar as the injunction originally issued has since been vacated. 7. However, this Court is not joining the issue with respect to the various contentions raised in O.S.No.55 of 2023 referred to above. In the captioned writ petition, this Court is only concerned about the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P6 order issued by the 2 nd respondent. 7. However, this Court is not joining the issue with respect to the various contentions raised in O.S.No.55 of 2023 referred to above. In the captioned writ petition, this Court is only concerned about the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P6 order issued by the 2 nd respondent. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6 order issued by the 2 nd respondent, however, making it clear that the observations in this judgment are not to be taken as a precedent with respect to various contentions raised in O.S.No.55 of 2023.