IMPORTANT POINTS
The persons entitled to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 2007 are only parents and senior citizens. Eventhough the appellants have raised a contention that they are entitled to continue the proceedings before the Tribunal after the death of a parent, in view of the provision contained under Section 5 of the Act, the same cannot be accepted because the said provision says that only in the event of a senior citizen or a parent unable to make an application, an application under Section 4 of the Act may be made by any other person or organisation.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

Instant writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 03.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.20234 of 2019. Appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.20234 of 2019 and stated to be near relatives/legal heirs of late Mariyamma John, who was the appellant in Appeal No.M5-6487/2015 before the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the instant writ appeal are as follows:

Late Mariyamma John had filed a petition before the 2nd respondent/Maintenance Tribunal, under Section 23 of the Act, for setting aside a Gift Deed No.3326/2012 to 3331/2012 of Thengana Sub Registrar Office that was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent. The Maintenance Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order, against which late Mariayamma John preferred Ext.P2 appeal, which also came to be dismissed by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, Mariayamma John filed W.P. (C)No.6520/2018, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Appellate Authority and, during the pendency of the said writ petition, Mariayamma John died. This Court, directed impleadment of the legal heirs of Mariyamma John and thereafter, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed reconsideration of the appeal by the appellate authority.

3. The appellate authority, based on the directions of this Court, proceeded to consider the appeal and passed Ext.P7 order.

4. Challenging Ext.P7 order and Ext.P9 order of the Maintenance Tribunal that gives effect to Ext.P7 order appellants have filed W.P.(C)No.20234/2019. Writ court by judgment dated 3.2.2020 dismissed the writ petition. Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:

“On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable before this Court. It has to be noticed that the right that was pursued by Mariyamma John was one that accrued to her in terms of the 2007 Act. Further, under the said Act, against any order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal it is only the senior citizen who has a statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is not in dispute that Mariyamma John had pursued that right of appeal, and still thereafter, preferred a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, however, Mariayamma John died and thereafter, this Court permitted a substitution of the legal heirs of Mariyamma John in the writ petition, and also remanded the matter before the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. In my view, with the expiry of Mariyamma John, the writ petition stood abated and this Court ought not to have impleaded the legal heirs in the writ petition. This is because, in the said writ petition, Mariayamma John was espousing her right under the 2007 Act, which right was one that accrued to her in her personal capacity as a senior citizen and not a heritable right under common law. The Appellate Authority too could not have considered the appeal that was being pursued by the legal heirs since it would tantamount to an adjudication of their proprietary rights by a forum other than a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is trite that when a senior citizen dies during the pendency of an appeal under the Act, the appeal itself abates, since the right that is pursued in the appeal is a statutory right that accrues to the senior citizen alone and is not a heritable right.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the writ petition impugning the order of the appellate authority under the Act cannot be pursued by the legal heirs of the deceased senior citizen. If there is a dispute with regard to their rights over the items of property that were in the ownership of the deceased senior citizen, then it is for the legal heirs to agitate their respective rights in respect of the property before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Thus