The court emphasized the necessity to properly define familial relationships under the Senior Citizens Act when adjudicating property disputes involving senior citizens.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 1^st respondent Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short, “Senior Citizens Act, 2007”), wherein a direction was issued in favour of respondents 2 and 3 to permit them to reside in the residential house through out their life time and a direction was issued to the petitioner to handover the key of the building to respondents 2 and 3.

2. It is averred that the late husband of the petitioner is the second son of respondents 2 and 3 and their marriage was solemnized on 17.08.2003 and in the said wedlock they have begotten two female children aged 17 and 14 respectively. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Superintendent in KSEB and on 22.02.2018 he lost his life in a road traffic accident. It is averred that more than Rs.10,00,000/- was spent for his treatment. The husband of the petitioner had constructed a residential house in the property allocated to him by respondents 2 and 3 by virtue of a settlement deed, which was constructed after availing financial assistance from the Bank of Baroda. Pursuant to the death of her husband, when the bank initiated coercive proceedings, the petitioner who is working in KSEB using her hard earned money, closed the loan. Subsequent to this, the elder brother and younger sister of her deceased husband attempted to illegally grab the property of the petitioner and the minor children and in view of the same, the petitioner had approached the Munsiff Court, Attingal filing O.S.No.146 of 2021 and Ext.P3 interim order of injunction was granted. After the injunction order was passed, the brother and sister of the deceased husband influencing respondents 2 and 3 had filed a petition before the 1^st respondent claiming right over the house of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 have been residing with their daughter since 2011 and suppressing the said fact, the application has been filed. It is the contention raised before the 1^st respondent Maintenance Tribunal that the 2^nd respondent was in absolute title and ownership of 5.06 Ares of land comprised in resurvey No.136/19-2 and 6.15 Ares of land and building comprised in resurvey No.133/14 of Alamcode Village and on 06.05.2015 the 1^st applicant, the 2^nd respondent herein, executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, who renovated the said building and was residing there with his family and the applicants. Later, the son shifted to a rented house at Thiruvananthapuram as he was employed there and the applicants were residing in the family house named Retnavilasom House. After the death of their son, the petitioner influenced the 2^nd applicant, who is the 3^rd respondent herein, to execute a settlement deed dated 07.06.2019 releasing her 1/4th right over the property in the name of the minor children. Thereafter, the petitioner and her relatives came to the property and locked the house using another lock. Thereupon Ext.P4 application was filed by respondents 2 and 3 seeking a direction to open the house named Retnavilasom and permitting them to reside there and to set aside the settlement deed executed by the applicants, respondents 2 and 3 herein, in favour of the husband of the opposite party, who is the petitioner herein, and also the subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of the minor children and also to prevent the opposite party from alienating the property. Petitioner would submit that the house was constructed by availing a loan from the bank and after the death of the husband, the loan became due and thereupon SARFAESI proceedings were initiated and it is only to escape from the said liability that the settlement deed was executed by the 3^rd respondent in fav