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 8Senior 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

3

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

4

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

5

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 j