Duryodhan Nivrutti Londhe vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Sub Divisional Officer And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide prayers for the cancellation of Gift Deeds, as well as consequential prayers, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This conclusion was based on the settled legal position, particularly as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another. The Tribunal had rejected the prayer for cancellation of the Gift Deed solely on the ground of lacking jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court partly allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the Tribunal's order to the extent of rejecting the prayers for cancellation of the Gift Deed. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on these prayers on their merits. The directions issued by the Tribunal regarding the care and non-harassment of the petitioner were confirmed. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the rival contentions on the merits of the prayer clauses for cancellation.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Duryodhan Nivrutti Londhe, a senior citizen, filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He sought cancellation of a Gift Deed executed in favour of his sons (respondent nos. 2 and 3), directions for respondent no. 3(A) to vacate a property, and for respondents 2 to 3(B) to take care of him without hindrance. The Tribunal partly allowed the application, directing the respondents to take care of the petitioner and not cause harassment. However, it rejected the prayer for cancellation of the Gift Deed, holding it lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the jurisdiction to decide a prayer for cancellation of a Gift Deed executed by a senior citizen, as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends to deciding prayers for cancellation of Gift Deeds, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another. He contended that the Tribunal erroneously rejected this prayer based on a lack of jurisdiction. Revenue/State's contention: The respective counsels for the respondents did not dispute the legal position regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the prayer for cancellation of the Gift Deed.