The right to appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is exclusively granted to senior citizens, and any appeal by a transferee is not maintainable.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

i. To quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.4 in No.MSC/HI.NA/CR/12/2021-22 vide Annexure-B and the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 in no.MG/CR-93/2021- 22 vide Annexure-E.

ii. To declare that the ‘Appellate Authority’ constituted under the Provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has no Authority or jurisdiction to remand the case to the Maintenance Tribunal in contravention of section 16(4) of the said Act.

iii. To pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Girish A. Yadawad appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.G.I. Gachchinamath appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGA Sri.Sharad V.Magadum representing the respondent-State.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The party to the lis, the respondent No.1 is the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner and respondent No.2 are brothers. It transpires that the mother knocks at the doors of the Assistant Commissioner invoking his jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2007 Act’, for short). The Assistant Commissioner directs entry of the name of the mother-respondent No.1 as well, along with the petitioner in the mutation entry of the property as described in the order. This order is called in question by the present petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner. On a challenge made to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner keeps the appeal in abeyance, directs the Assistant Commissioner to decide about the maintenance. The execution of the said direction is said to be pending even as on today. The issue now would be whether the Assistant Commissioner has a right under the 2007 Act to tweak the mutation entries in favour of the parties and the Deputy Commissioner on the challenge could have entertained the appeal or otherwise. Both these issues need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. A Coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.11991/2021 connected with W.P.No.5142/2021 disposed on 16.01.2024 has held as follows:

“11. The questions that arise for consideration in the present matter are:

i. Whether the proceeding under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 could be filed in respect of a partition deed?

ii. Whether in the present case, the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner and that of the Deputy Commissioner are proper and correct?

12. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the proceeding under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 could be filed in respect of a partition deed?

12.1. This aspect is no longer res integra. A coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 25.03.2019 in W.P. No.36601/2017 and other connected matters has categorically come to a conclusion that a partition deed is not covered under Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and such a partition deed cannot be questioned in a proceeding under Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

12.2. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that the challenge to a partition deed could not be made under Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

13. Answer to Point No.2: Whether in the present case, the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner and that of the Deputy Commissioner are proper and correct?

13.1. Taking into consideration my answer to point uld be seen that what has been challenged before the Asst. Commissioner is in fact not even the partition deed but MR entry T19/2016-17 which is the entry relating to renumbering of Sy.No.102 falling to the share of Srinivas as Sy.No.102/5.

13.2. The said MR No.T19/16-17 does not relate to any transfer of title being recorded but only records the renumbering of Sy.No.102 as Sy.No.102/5. The name of