The court reinforced that under the Senior Citizens Act, transfers could be deemed void if they result in failing to provide for the basic needs of the senior citizen, thus protecting their rights.

O R D E R

The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings dated 29.11.2022 under the Senior Citizens Act, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Though the order stipulates that the petitioner can prefer an appal, the Senior Citizens Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short], contemplates an appeal only to the aggrieved senior citizen.

3. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed against the son of the senior citizen/writ petitioner and therefore, no appeal is maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the present writ petition is entertainable.

4. The second respondent is the father of the writ petitioner and the third respondent is his brother. A Partition Deed was executed on 01.11.2021 between the family members, which is registered as Document No.4734 of 2021.

5. The petitioner states that the Partition Deed was executed voluntarily by the family members. 'A' Schedule property in the document was allotted to the second respondent/father and in lieu of immovable properties, he had taken cash of Rs.50,000/- from and out of the joint family income. The sister of the petitioner was allotted 'D' Schedule property and she had taken Rs.2 lakhs from and out of the joint family income. The petitioner was allotted 'B' Schedule property and accordingly, the partition was effected.

6. The petitioner states that he is working in Saudi Arabia. To put up constructions in Door No.3/354, out of his own earnings and the said house situate in Survey No.303/6A. In the joint family house, the petitioner's family and the second respondent, were residing together and the said property is allotted to the third respondent. The house situate in Survey No.303/6B was occupied by the father and mother of the writ petitioner.

7. It is not in dispute that the house property is maintained by the second respondent. The petitioner states that his wife has been disturbed by the second respondent in order to evict her. Under those circumstances, the second respondent filed a petition under the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering any of the facts and circumstances, passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to maintain the second respondent, who is none other than his father. He has no objection to provide residence in the same house where his parents were living. The second respondent is unnecessarily creating disturbance and he made an attempt to send out his wife and children and that prompted for initiation of action under the Act. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would oppose by stating that the second respondent-senior citizen was thrown out from his residence by the wife of the writ petitioner. The senior citizen was not allowed to reside in his own house and therefore, he filed an application to cancel the Partition Deed for the purpose of protecting his residence, where he is living for years together along with his wife and family members.

10. Since the petitioner has not cooperated and instigated his wife to send out the second respondent from the house, the second respondent initiated action under the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and based on the statements and considering the circumstances, passed the order, cancelling the Partition Deed, since the right of residence of the petitioner is to be protected under the Act.

11. The petitioner would further submit that the Partition Deed was executed with the consent of the family members and therefore, it cannot be cancelled. More-so, he is ready to accommodate the second respondent in the house. That being so, the impugned order is to be set aside.

12. The order impugned reveals that an elaborate enquiry has been conducted. The mother of the writ petitioner has given a statement before the Competent Authority under the Act