Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is exclusively available to senior citizens or parents, which cannot be exercised by other parties, including children or transferees.
Also Read - Tribunals under senior citizens protection law can order eviction: SC [Read Judgment]
SC Upholds Exclusive Appeal Rights for Senior Citizens Under 2007 Act
A bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind made this observation while partly allowing a writ appeal filed by K Lokesh.
In February 2019, P Krishna executed a gift deed transferring a 1,500 sqft house in Adugodi, Bengaluru, to his elder son, Ayyappa. Later, alleging fraud and denial of basic amenities, Krishna approached the assistant commissioner under the Senior Citizens Act. On February 27, 2023, the assistant commissioner cancelled the gift deed based on Krishna’s complaint.
Children Cannot Challenge Decisions Under Senior Citizens Maintenance Act: SC
On July 14, 2023, Krishna bequeathed the same property to his second son, K Lokesh, through a registered will and passed away the same day. Subsequently, Ayyappa appealed the cancellation of the gift deed before the deputy commissioner under Section 16, who overturned the assistant commissioner’s order and restored the property rights to Ayyappa.
Lokesh challenged this decision in the High Court, which initially remitted the case to the deputy commissioner for reconsideration. However, in January 2024, the deputy commissioner once again set aside the assistant commissioner’s order, restoring property records in Ayyappa’s name. Lokesh then filed a writ petition, and a single bench nullified both the assistant commissioner’s and deputy commissioner’s orders, directing the parties to resolve their rights in a competent court.
Lokesh appealed the single bench’s decision, prompting the division bench to clarify that Section 16 of the Act grants the right of appeal solely to senior citizens or parents. The court held that Ayyappa’s appeal before the deputy commissioner was not maintainable under the Act.
“He (Ayyappa) may pursue any other legal remedy available against the order passed by the assistant commissioner. The primary issue will once again be the effect of the registered will, which is left to the parties to invoke appropriate remedy,” the bench said.
Lokesh also said the rights in the property conferred on his brother through gift deed are not available in view of the gift deed being set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the rights in such property vested with the appellant through a subsequent registered Will of July 14, 2023.
He submitted the Deputy Commissioner, in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act, cannot annul the rights vested with the appellant under the registered Will unless the Will is set aside in the manner known to law.
The appellant's brother said the existence of two conditions are sine qua non to avail the remedy under Section 23 of the Act. The first condition is, to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs. The second condition is, failure or refusal to provide such amenities and basic physical needs. As both conditions are not available in the present case, the order of the Assistant Commissioner declaring the gift deed as void is not sustainable.
