Right To Appeal U/s. 16 Maintenance & Welfare Of Parents & Senior Citizens Act Can Be Invoked Only By A Parent, And Not Their Children: Karnataka HC

The Court partly allowed an intra-court Appeal setting aside the Order of the Single Bench which restored a gift deed allowing third parties to agitate their rights before a competent Court. The Division Bench held that only senior citizens or parents can invoke the appellate provision under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind observed, “When an order is issued under Section 23 of the Act, either the senior citizen or the transferee may be considered an aggrieved party. The statute provides a remedy of appeal against such an order, which is governed by Section 16 of the Act. While two parties may potentially be affected by an order under Section 23, the appeal remedy explicitly applies to the senior citizen or parent.”

Senior Advocate Puttige R. Ramesh represented the Appellant, while Government Advocate K.S. Harish appeared for the Respondents.

The Appellant filed the Writ Appeal challenging the Single Bench’s Order which restored a disputed gift deed. The dispute arose over alleged property gifted by Appellant’s father to his brother a gift deed dated. Alleging fraudulent execution of the gift deed and denial of basic amenities, the father invoked Section 23 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner who declared it void.

It was submitted that during the pendency of the Appeal, the father of the Appellant executed a will bequeathing him the property and passed away the same day. Following a remand by the Single Bench, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s Order on January 24, 2024, reinstating the gift deed.

The High Court explained that Section 16 of the Act provides a senior citizen or parent the right to appeal against an order passed under Section 23. “However, in this case, the Deputy Commissioner entertained the appeal at the request of the transferee. The appellant has argued that such an appeal is not maintainable and that any order passed in such an appeal would not withstand legal scrutiny,” it noted.

“The language of Section 16 of the Act is plain, clear, and unambiguous. This provision specifically and unequivocally grants the right of appeal exclusively to senior citizens. Extending this right to any other person, including the transferee, is not permissible. Interpreting Section 23 of the Act to provide a right of appeal to the transferee or any other person would amount to rewriting the provision, a function that lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Granting such a right to the transferee would contradict the legislative intent behind the Act,” the Bench explained.

The Court also explained that “If the children or transferee is aggrieved by an order under Section 23 of the Act, they are not without a remedy. They can always invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While this may result in two separate proceedings before different forums, such a situation cannot be used as a basis to extend the right of appeal under Section 16 of the Act to a different class of persons, as this right was not provided by Parliament.”

Consequently, the Court held, “In light of the conclusion reached by this Court, the judgments of different High Courts with the contrary view providing right of appeal to the children/transferee, this Court respectfully disagree to endorse such view.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal in part.

Cause Title: K. Lokesh v. The Bangalore District Maintenance & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:53004-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Puttige R. Ramesh; Advocate A. Srikanth

Respondents: Government Advocate K.S. Harish; Advocate Ranganath Reddy

Click here to read/download the Judgment