Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. Mother and daughter fight over a piece of property. Mother claims exclusive right over the property; the daughter, on the other hands, claims to be a co-owner along with the mother. Alleging that she was dispossessed, the mother wants the daughter and son-in-law to be evicted from the property so she could repossess the property.

2. In this appeal, therefore, we are called upon to decide the jurisdictional scope of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Dispute:

3. The dispute involves a mother and her daughter. Now the daughter along with her husband is before us in this writ appeal assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 30350 of 2015.

4. To begin with, on 27.05.2013, the mother, the third respondent, filed the Ext.P1 complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal, the second respondent. She contended that her daughter and son-in-law, the appellants before us, had forcefully evicted her from her house and refused to let her in. She also alleged that whenever she tried to enter the house, the daughter and the son-in-law set their dog on her, preventing her entry-reads pathetic. But an allegation’s severity is no proof of its truth. Given the litigation between the mother and daughter, the Court may not come under the spell of passion in its adjudication.

5. In course of time, the appellants entered their appearance before the Tribunal and contested the case, among other things, on the ground that the property is ancestral, and the family is governed by the Marumakkathayam Law of Succession. According to the daughter, as the property belongs to the mother's parents, she too has a birthright along with her mother. Eventually, the Tribunal, through Ext.P4, directed the daughter and the son-in-law to vacate the house within 45 days and to maintain the mother appropriately.

6. As seen from the record, further complaining that the daughter and the son-in-law did not comply with the Ext.P4 order, the mother approached the appellate authority, the first respondent, who treated the mother's application as an appeal. He directed the daughter and the son-in-law to vacate the premises within one month.

The Impugned Judgment:

7. Under these circumstances, both the daughter and the son-in- law filed W.P.(C) No. 30350 of 2015, which a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed, through judgment dated 24.03.2017.

8. The learned Single Judge has referred to section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”) to observe that “a senior citizen, including those who are unable to maintain himself or herself, has a statutory right for being maintained by his or her children. The only qualification against the reciprocal statutory obligation of children to maintain their parents is that they are not in possession of the property of such senior citizen or that they would not inherit such property.” It is further observed that the daughter and the son-in-law are, admittedly, enjoying both these benefits. “They are concededly in possession of the property of the third respondent and they are, going by the rules of intestate succession, entitled to inherit the property from the third respondent.”

9. As the daughter and the son-in-law were ordered to be evicted, they questioned the authorities’ jurisdiction and also contended that the eviction is beyond the statutory scope. In answer, the learned Single Judge has observed that their contention “causes violation to every possible logic and reasoning and, to say the least, is completely innocent of comprehension.” Further goes the observation that “the statute is a special one intended to take into its protection those less fortunate citizens who are infirm and old but being without any support and who are then exploited by those who are either in possession of their property or entitled to inherit such property.”

Writ Appeal:

10. Further aggrieved, the daughter