Back
Not Covered By Section 23 Of Senior Citizens Act:
The has ruled that a senior citizen who alleges that a of his property was forged cannot seek its cancellation under the . The remedy, the court held, lies before a civil court.
A division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla dismissed a filed by 68-year-old Balveer Singh, who claimed his daughter Garima Yadav and son-in-law Devendra Singh Yadav forged a registered of his house in Lalitpur and forcibly dispossessed him. He had sought under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, but the District Magistrate rejected his application.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner asserted that the dated , purportedly transferring his sole residential property to his daughter, did not bear his signatures. He alleged that on the strength of this fabricated document, the respondents assaulted him and threw him out of the house, compelling him to live in rented accommodation in Jhansi. He had also lodged an FIR leading to a charge-sheet under the .
Despite his representations to the authorities, no action was taken. The High Court had earlier directed the District Magistrate to consider his application, but the District Magistrate rejected it on , prompting the present petition.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Act is a social welfare legislation that must be liberally construed. Relying on the 's decision in , he contended that the Tribunal has the power to evict transferees who do not provide basic amenities. He submitted that since the contained no stipulation for maintenance and the daughter had neglected him, the transfer should be declared .
The State, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, countered that Section 23(1) of the Act applies only where a valid transfer is made on the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities, and the transferee fails to do so. Here, the challenge was to the very execution of the deed on grounds of , which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis: Scope of Section 23
The court closely examined Section 23(1) of the Act, which reads:
"Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the
to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by
and shall at the option of the transferor be declared
by the Tribunal."
The bench held that this provision presupposes a . It creates a statutory right of when the condition is broken, not a general power to impeach a document on grounds of . The court observed: “It is not a wide open power to impeach the validity of a document, which the Tribunal, constituted under the Act of 2007, is conferred with.”
Referring to its earlier decision in , the court reiterated that the Tribunal's power to evict is incidental to securing maintenance or protection of life and property. It is not a substitute for a civil court.
The court further noted: “If Garima Yadav were not the petitioner's daughter… could he have, on the allegations set forth in his application to the Tribunal, maintained his application for declaring the on the ground that it is a forged document? We think not.”
Key Observations
The court was critical of the District Magistrate's procedure of setting up committees to inquire into the alleged
, calling it
"quite foreign to the scheme of things."
It cautioned Tribunals across the State to follow the judicial procedure prescribed under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, which require evidence to be taken on oath in the presence of the opposite party.
The bench emphasized: “The Tribunal does not sit as a forum to evict members of the family of a senior citizen either at its whim or to enforce a set of rights that arise under the ordinary civil laws.”
Court's Decision
Dismissing the , the court held that the challenge to the fell wholly outside the scope of proceedings under the Act. However, it clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to enforce his rights by instituting an appropriate suit before a court of competent civil jurisdiction.
The order has been directed to be communicated to the District Magistrate, Lalitpur. The court made it clear that its decision does not bar the petitioner from pursuing to cancel the and recover possession.
