SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandernagore declared a gift deed dated June 26, 2015, executed by the opposite party no. 1 Minati in favour of the petitioners, void in terms of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2007 Act"), by accepting a deed of revocation filed by the opposite party no. 1 and granting 8 weeks to the petitioners to hand over the gifted property to the opposite party no. 1 after vacating their belongings, failing which they would have to be evicted.

2. The petitioner no. 1, namely Mita, is the younger (married) daughter of the opposite party no. 1, namely Minati, and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 the husband and son, respectively, of the petitioner no. 1. During pendency of the revisional application, the opposite party no. 2 Indranil (son of the elder daughter of the opposite party no. 1) was added as a party on the strength of a gift deed executed by the opposite party no. 1 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 subsequent to the impugned order being passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that previously the opposite party no. 1 had instituted against the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2 a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 410 of 2015, in the First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Chandernagore for declaration that the plaintiff (present opposite party no. 1) was the absolute owner of the suit property and her right, title and interest had not been affected in any way by the forged, fraudulent so-called deed of gift dated June 26, 2015 being No. 2015 of DSR II, Chinsurah Hooghly and the same was not binding upon the plaintiff, for further declaration that the defendant no. 1 therein (present petitioner no. 1) had not acquired any right, title interest in the suit property by dint of forged, fraudulent, void aforesaid alleged deed of gift and for consequential reliefs.

4. In the said suit, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, being the defendants therein, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not prayed for the further relief of cancellation of the gift deed-in-question, which was available to her, and as such the suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The civil court, vide Order No. 15 dated March 4, 2017 passed in the said suit, allowed the said application, thereby rejecting the plaint of the present opposite party no. 1.

5. The basis of the said previous suit was the allegation that the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2, on the misrepresentation that a power of attorney was being executed by the present opposite party no. 1 for looking after the suit property, obtained the signature of the opposite party no. 1 on the impugned gift deed, took the opposite party no. 1 to the Chinsurah DSR II registration office and got the deed registered fraudulently.

6. It is argued that although the previous suit was filed before the civil court by the opposite party no. 1 herself, thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the civil court, the present application was filed under the 2007 Act by the opposite party no. 1 on similar grounds, by suppressing the fact of institution of the previous suit and its dismissal for default. As such, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the application for such suppression.

7. Moreover, it is argued, the tribunal had inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, in view of the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, which form the plinth of the proceeding, falling within the exclusive domain of civil courts and outside the purview of Section 23 of the 2007 Act, thereby denuding the tribunal of the power to grant relief in the matter.

8. Further, by placing reliance on the contents of the gift deed-in-