The appellate authority cannot entertain appeals from parties who were respondents in the original tribunal application under the relevant law.

JUDGMENT

The original petitioner is a widow and a senior citizen. She approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and obtained cancellation of two settlement deeds executed by her on the ground of lack of maintenance by the respondents. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector, Kozhikode. Challenging Ext.P5 order, respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. As per Ext.P8 order, the appellate authority modified the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Challenging Ext.P8, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Pending the Writ petition, the senior citizen who approached the Maintenance Tribunal died. Her legal heirs and legal representatives were impleaded in the Writ petition.

4. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P8 order is unsustainable because respondent Nos.3 to 5 can not file an appeal against Ext.P5 order in the light of the decision of this Court in Najeeb v. Maintenance Tribunal, Tvm and others [2018(3) KHC 825]. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is without jurisdiction and non est and therefore, Ext.P8 order may be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that, this point is not raised either before the appellate authority or before this Court in the Writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that, in such situation this Court may not interfere with Ext.P8 order at this instance of time. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Ananthakrishnan v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.[ 1988(2)KLT 159 ].

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, no appeal will lie against Ext.P5 order at the instance of respondents 3 to 5.

7. This Court in Najeeb v. Maintenance Tribunal, Tvm and others [ 2018(3) KHC 825 ], considered this point in detail and observed that no appellate remedy is conferred on a party who is the respondent in the application before the tribunal.

8. In the light of the above authoritative judgment of this Court, according to me, the District Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal at the instance of respondents 3 to 5. According to me, Ext.P8 order is without jurisdiction and non est. In such circumstances, Ext.P8 order is to be set aside. But, I make it clear that the respondents 3 to 5 can challenge Ext.P5 order if they are aggrieved by appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioner or the contesting respondents. All contentions of the petitioner and the contesting respondents in the matter are left open. With these observations this Writ petition is disposed of in the following manner.

(i) Ext.P8 order is set aside.

(ii)All the contentions of the petitioner and the contesting respondents on merit are left open.

(iii)Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are at liberty to challenge Ext.P5 order in accordance with law, if they are adviced so.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25677/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 15-7-2013 EXECUTED BY K.K. BHANUMATHI AMMA IN FAVOUR OF BALAKRISHNAN (DOCUMENT NO. 2248/2013, MEENCHANDA S.R.O)

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 15-7-2013 EXECUTED BY K.K. BHANUMATHY AMMA IN FAVOUR OF SURESH KUMAR (DOCUMENT NO. 2249/2013, MEENCHANDA S.R.O)

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY K.K. BHANUMATHI AMMA BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL (RDO, KOZHIKODE)

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 29-10-2016 SUBMITTED BY SREEKUMARI & OTHERS IN PETITION NO. J 10927 BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL (RDO, KOZHIKODE)

EXHIBIT P5