Nirmal Singh and Others Vs Jarnail Singh

Defendants of the case are before this Court in present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Plain�ff Jarnail Singh (respondent herein) is the father of defendant No.1 Nirmal Singh, father-in-law of defendant No.2 Balkiran Kaur and grandfather of defendant No.3 Bir Yuvraj Singh.

¶12

2.1 It is not disputed that plain�ff is exclusive owner of House No.MIG-1336/7, Phase-XI, Sector-65, Mohali. In one por�on of the said house, defendants are residing. Alleging that behavior of the defendants had become indifferent to the plain�ff, who had disowned him, the plain�ff claimed that he had revoked the licence of the defendants and had asked them to vacate the property in terms of legal no�ce dated 09.07.2021 within a period of 30 days but defendants failed to do so. Plain�ff prayed for decree of mandatory injunc�on to direct the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the part of the suit property under their occupa�on and also to pay ₹10,000/- per month as user and occupa�on charges �ll handing over the possession.

¶13

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RSA-1341-2025 (O&M)

¶15

2.2 Defendants contested the suit. Necessary issues were framed. A�er taking evidence produced by the par�es, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 21.05.2024 by learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants (appellants herein) was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 15.01.2025, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

¶16

Assailing the aforesaid findings, the only conten�on raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that jurisdic�on of the Civil Court is barred under Sec�on 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens Act, 2007 [Act, 2007] and therefore, the Civil Court could not have decreed the suit.

¶17

A�er hearing learned counsel, this Court does not find merit in the conten�on.

¶18

Sec�on 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens Act, 2007 reads as under:-

¶19

“ 27. Jurisdic�on of civil courts barred

¶20

No Civil Court shall have jurisdic�on in respect of any ma�er to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunc�on shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act.”

¶21

The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that jurisdic�on of the Civil Court is barred only in respect of such ma�ers, to which the provision of this Act, 2007 applies; and the injunc�on cannot be granted by the Civil Court only in respect of anything, which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act. The necessary corollary is that in case there is any such ma�er to which the provision of this Act, 2007 does not apply, the Civil Court will have the jurisdic�on.

¶22

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens

¶23

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA-1341-2025 (O&M)

¶25

Act, 2007 was enacted to provide effec�ve provisions for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens and for the ma�er connected therewith. Under Sec�on 4 of the said Act, any senior ci�zen including a parent, who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, is en�tled to make an applica�on under Sec�on 5 against any one or more of his children; or in case of a childless senior ci�zen against such of his rela�ves as are referred in Clause (g) of Sec�on 2. Sec�on 5 provides about moving of the applica�on referred in Sec�on 4; and also provides the procedure as to how the applica�on is to be considered. Sec�on 8 provides that in holding the enquiry under Sec�on 5, the Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as he deems fit. Maintenance order can be passed as per Sec�on 9. The subsequent provisions provide for altera�on in the allowance; enforcement of the order of maintenance etc. Chapter III of the Act provides for establishment of the old age homes. Chapter IV provide for provisions for medical care of senior ci�zens; whereas Chapter V deals with protec�on of life and property of the senior ci�zens.

¶26

8. Sec�on 23 of the Act reads as under:-

¶27

“ 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances

¶28

Where any senior ci�zen who, a�er the commencement of this Act, has by way of gi� or otherwise, (transferred ) his property, subject to the condi�on that the transferee shall provide the basic ameni�es and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such ameni�es and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the op�on of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

¶29

Where any senior ci�zen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee, if the transferee has

¶30

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-1341-2025 (O&M)

¶32

no�ce of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for considera�on and without no�ce of right.

¶33

If any senior ci�zen is incapable of enforcing the rights under subsec�ons (1) and (2), ac�on may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisa�on referred to in Explana�on to sub-sec�on (1) of sec�on 5.”

¶34

As per the aforesaid provision, in case, any senior ci�zen has by way of gi� or otherwise transferred the property on the condi�on that transferee is to provide him basic ameni�es and physical needs, and such a transferee refuse or fails to provide such ameni�es and physical needs, the transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence etc. and then at the op�on of the transferor, the transac�on may be declared as void by the Tribunal.

¶35

In the present case, plain�ff-respondent is owner of the house in ques�on. He is not seeking any maintenance or protec�on from the defendants, who are his son, grandson and daughter-in-law. He is simply seeking mandatory injunc�on to direct the defendants to vacate the por�on of the house, which is under their occupa�on, as their licence has been revoked. Said relief as claimed by the plain�ff is not covered under any of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens Act, 2007, as it is not the case of the plain�ff that he had transferred by way of gi� or otherwise any property to the defendants nor he wants to get any such transac�on to be declared as void.

¶36

In view of the abovesaid factual & legal posi�on, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the jurisdic�on of the Civil Court is not barred under Sec�on 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci�zens Act, 2007.

¶37