JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.279/2020 dated 04.01.2021 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapura, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') r/w Section 3, 23 & 27 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Senior Citizens Act, 2007).

2. Plaintiff/appellant instituted the suit seeking relief of Specific Performance of Contract of Sale contending that defendant having executed the registered agreement of sale in his favour and received Rs.4 lakh as earnest money, failed to execute the sale deed even though Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

3. Defendant filed written statement. Along with written statement, the defendant has filed I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC R/W Section 3, 23 and 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed to reject the plaint, contending that the Civil Court jurisdiction to try this suit is barred as defendant is his mother and senior citizen. Hence, dispute is governed by Special Enactment. The said I.A.No.3 came to be allowed.

Hence this appeal.

4. Heard Sri. J.S.Somashekara, learned counsel for appellant and Sri. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for respondent, at the stage of admission itself, the matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of both side counsel.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is illegal and not in accordance with law. The Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that except the Civil Court, the suit for specific performance of contract of sale could not be filed before in any other forum. Therefore, the Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 9 CPC. The Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the agreement of sale is not a conveyance deed which conveys title to immovable property and same does not amounts to transfer of property as stated under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Learned counsel submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal headed by the Assistant Commissioner, under Senior Citizens Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') came to be dismissed stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal filed by defendant vide order dated 28.06.2021. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal as prayed.

6. Against this learned counsel for defendant/respondent argued that the trial of the suit before Civil Court is barred by provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that defendant is none other than the mother of the plaintiff and the said aspect is suppressed by the plaintiff. The learned Senior Civil Judge placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Pachamma Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2017 (3) AKR 850 and also decision in the case of Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2016 Rajasthan 188 has come to the conclusion that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and rejected the plaint. Therefore, learned counsel argued that no grounds made out by appellant to interfere with the impugned order.

7. From the above, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

(1) Whether the suit from the statement of the plaint appears to be barred by Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Civil Court jurisdiction is excluded?

2) Whether the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chickballapur rejecting the plaint is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and needs interference by this court?

8. We have perused impugned order.

9. The learned Senior Civil Judge has referred to the provisions of Sections 3, 23 and 27 of Senior Citizens Act and held that trial of the present suit is barred before Civil Court. It further held, only the Tribunal constituted under Senior Citizens Act 2007 alone has jurisdiction to try suc