Children's Only Motive To Prolong Proceedings, Cant Be Allowed At Senior Citizen Father's Cost: MP High Court In Property Dispute Case

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissed a plea moved by the children of a senior citizen father against an order by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, removing the children from the alleged ancestral property. 

The case pertained to the application of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the children's claim to ancestral rights.

A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal in its order observed that it appeared that the petitioners (children) had only one motive which was to prolong the proceedings which cannot be permitted as the father who is a senior citizen is protected under the 2007 Act. 

"In view of such facts, when tested, it appears that petitioners have only one device and one motive to prolong the proceedings which they have been successfully doing since 2020, but that cannot be allowed to be at the cost of respondent No.3 (father), who is a senior citizen and for whose protection, the Act of 2007, has been brought into force. Therefore, petition deserves to fail and is dismissed as no cause of action or legal provision has been brought to the notice of this Court to substantiate the reliefs claimed by the petitioners. Petitioners shall bear cost of this litigation for the respondents, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)," the high court said. 

It noted that the father in his plea before the SDO had alleged that the petitioners (children) were causing nuisance by disconnecting his motor pump. The father had also made a prayer for reconnection of the motor pump and for registration of a case against the petitioners, for the "safety of his life and the property and initiate criminal proceedings". The father had also prayed that his children be restrained from raising/causing any construction or any  interference in his property and not to cause any hindrance in the use of water, toilet and easementary rights. 

Justice Agarwal observed that the SDO in his order had considered the father's problem and had asked the petitioners to not to cause any interference in the life of senior citizen and remove themselves from the property.

The court said that when the SDO's order is tested on the "touchstone" of the aim and object of the Senior Citizens Act and the MP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules 2009, the same "cannot be faulted with”. 

It also observed that when Rule 20 under the 2009 Rules is considered then the "competent authority"–i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), is found competent to pass such orders. Infact the high court said, the rule "bestows a duty" on the authorities to attend the complaints/problems of senior citizens promptly.

Rule 20 of the 2009 Rules, governs the protection of senior citizens' property, allowing authorities to intervene when senior citizens face property disputes. The court ruled that the Sub Divisional Officer had acted within jurisdiction, ensuring the father's protection by directing the petitioner children to vacate the property.

The children had moved the high court against the SDO's order claiming that the property granted to their grandfather in 1974 was ancestral and jointly owned. They opposed the property's transfer to their father, under the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The petitioner children claimed that they had been wrongfully evicted from the land they relied on for livelihood.

They had also invoked the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to claim a right to reside in a shared household. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Act was irrelevant to the present case, as none of the petitioners were female, and no domestic violence concerns were raised. 

Case title: Chakradhar And Others v/s Collector/District Magistrate /Appellate Authority And Others

Case no: WP-27277-2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 220

Click Here To Read/Download Order