noticed that the right that was pursued by Mariyamma John was one that accrued to her in terms of the 2007 Act. Further, under the said Act, against any order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal it is only the senior citizen who has a statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is not in dispute that Mariyamma John had pursued that right of appeal, and still thereafter, preferred a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, however, Mariayamma John died and thereafter, this Court permitted a substitution of the legal heirs of Mariyamma John in the writ petition, and also remanded the matter before the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. In my view, with the expiry of Mariyamma John, the writ petition stood abated and this Court ought not to have impleaded the legal heirs in the writ petition. This is because, in the said writ petition, Mariayamma John was espousing her right under the 2007 Act, which right was one that accrued to her in her personal capacity as a senior citizen and not a heritable right under common law. The Appellate Authority too could not have considered the appeal that was being pursued by the legal heirs since it would tantamount to an adjudication of their proprietary rights by a forum other than a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is trite that when a senior citizen dies during the pendency of an appeal under the Act, the appeal itself abates, since the right that is pursued in
