2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 1127 . 2023 DHC 1345 .

SH. ADITYA GUPTA v. SH. NARENDER GUPTA & ORS.

Delhi High Court (Feb 24, 2023)

CASE NO.

CS(OS)-528/2019

DISPOSITION

dismissed

ADVOCATES

JUDGES

Mini Pushkarna, J.

SUMMARY

I.A. 14315/2019 (Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC
for ex-parte Ad - interim injunction on behalf of plaintiff)

The present is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 CPC for ex- parte ad- interim injunction with prayer for staying further
proceedings of the case as initiated by parents of the plaintiff against the plaintiff under
Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
("Senior Citizens Act").
Pass such other order granting relief to the Plaintiff which this Hon'ble court thinks fit and
proper in the facts of the case;" The defendant no. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the
plaintiff herein.
The said complaint was filed on the basis of physical and mental abuse levelled by the
plaintiff on his parents i.e. defendant nos. 1 and 2 herein.
Subsequently, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against his parents for declaration
that the suit property is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) property and that plaintiff has
got coparcenry rights in the same. The plaintiff is further seeking partition of the property .
The plaintiff and his wife along with their minor son have been residing in the suit
property since its purchase in the year 2010.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 are descendants of

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 1 of 14

Lala Bhagirath Mal, who was the karta of HUF along with his three sons. He left behind
large number of HUF properties and other assets.
Under law, a co- owner cannot file suit for recovery of possession against another co-
owner and only remedy is to file suit for partition of the property .
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that under Section 41(b) of The Specific Relief Act,
1963 this Court has the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the Maintenance
Tribunal as the continuance of the same would cause extreme injustice to the plaintiff.
The defendants are the victims of ill- treatment, harassment, physical and mental torture
suffered at the hands of the plaintiff, who has been allowed to stay with the defendants.
The defendant No. 2 has a registered Sale Deed in her own name, therefore, the question of
suit property being HUF does not arise. Hence, the present suit which has been filed in
the year 2019 is barred by limitation.
As regards the Senior Citizens Act, it is to be noted that the said Act was enacted in order
to combat the social challenge of elderly parents not being looked after or provided for by
their children.
Furthermore, Section 2(f) of the said Act describes property as both Ancestral and Self
Acquired.
Rule 22(3) (1) of the Senior Citizens Rules provides for the procedure for eviction from
property /residential building of Senior Citizens/parents.
This Court in the case of Smt. Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 10535 has held that the contention that the property in question is ancestral or HUF is
not relevant in view of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
(Amendment) Rules, 2017. Thus, it was held that after the aforesaid amendment, Rule
22(3)(1)(i) was amended to state that the parents can ask for eviction of his son, daughter,
etc. from their property , whether Ancestral or Self Acquired.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aarshya Gulati (Through : Next Friend Mrs.
Divya Gulati) v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8801 has held that in
order to protect the property of Senior Citizens, whether moveable or immovable,
Ancestral or Self Acquired, Tangible or Intangible and includes rights or interests in such
property , the District Magistrate under the Senior Citizens Act may direct eviction
therefrom.
Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the
procedure is both time consuming as well as expensive.
Further, a senior citizen cannot knock the door of civil Court to fight a legal battle to
obtain the possession of the property as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under
Section 27 of the Act.
The limited challenge is to the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal to order an

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 2 of 14

eviction under the Act of 2007.
A statute is an edict of the Legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary to seek the
intention of its maker.
Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the Courts should keep in mind the
objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted.
Reading of the aforesaid clearly shows that Senior Citizens have every right to protect
themselves and in case of ill- treatment and abuse by their children/ legal heirs, can
approach the Maintenance Tribunal for their eviction from their property of any kind,
which includes both Ancestral as well as Self Acquired Property .
However, pendency of a partition suit by the son against his parents is no deterrent or
hindrance to proceeding with the matter before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior
Citizens Act.
It is also pertinent to note here that Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act stipulates in clear
terms that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of any matter to which
provisions of the said Act applies.
Section 27 thus reads as under: "27. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.—No Civil Court
shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies
and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done
or intended to be done by or under this Act."
In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present application is found to be without
any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.:—

I.A. 14315/2019 (Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for
ex-parte Ad - interim injunction on behalf of plaintiff)
1. The present is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 CPC for ex- parte ad- interim injunction with prayer for staying further
proceedings of the case as initiated by parents of the plaintiff against the plaintiff under
Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(“Senior Citizens Act”). The present application prays for the following:—
“(a) Pass ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders against the defendants whereby staying the
further proceedings of the case No. F. No. DM/ SE/274/19/747-51 titled as Smt. Neena
Gupta V. Aditya Gupta u/ s 23 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents & Senior
Citizen, Act before the Tribunal during the pendency of the present suit in the interest of
justice.
(b) Pass ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders against the defendants whereby restraining

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 3 of 14

the defendants their agents or anyone acting for and on their behalf from dispossessing the
plaintiff and his family from the possesion of suit property i.e. property No. C-580, III
Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi as shown in red colour of site plan in exclusive
possession of the plaintiff and his family and in common possession of the plaintiff as
shown in green colour during the pendency of the present suit in the interest of justice.
(c) Pass such other order granting relief to the Plaintiff which this Hon'ble court thinks fit
and proper in the facts of the case;”
2. The defendant no. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the plaintiff herein. The
defendants had initiated proceedings under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act against
their son by filing a complaint dated 24.07.2019 before the Maintenance Tribunal. The said
complaint was filed on the basis of physical and mental abuse levelled by the plaintiff on
his parents i.e. defendant nos. 1 and 2 herein. Thus, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have sought
assistance of the Maintenance Tribunal in removing the plaintiff from the suit property ,
where the parties are jointly residing.
3. Subsequently, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against his parents for
declaration that the suit property is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) property and that
plaintiff has got coparcenry rights in the same. The plaintiff is further seeking partition of
the property . The prayers as made in the present suit are as follows:—
“(a) Pass a decree of declaration whereby declaring that the suit property i.e. Property
No. C-580, III Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi comprising of 4 bed rooms with
attached bathrooms, drawing/ dining, kitchen, family lounge, one servant quarter in
staircase with toilet at terrace, with entire terrace rights, middle car parking in the stilt
parking, common area & lift and proportionate rights in the land measuring 299.8.sq yds is
an HUF property in which the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 are having
coparcenary rights to the extent of ⅓rd share each in the same.
(b) Pass a preliminary decree of partition of the Property No. C-580, III Floor, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi comprising of 4 bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing/
dining, kitchen, family lounge, one servant quarter in staircase with toilet at terrace, with
entire terrace rights, middle car parking in the stilt parking, common area & lift and
proportionate rights in the land measuring 299.8.sq yds declaring the shares of the parties;
(c) Pass a final decree of partition of Property No. C-580, III Floor, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi comprising of 4 bed rooms with attached bathrooms, drawing/dining, kitchen,
family lounge, one servant quarter in staircase with toilet at terrace, with entire terrace
rights, middle car parking in the stilt parking, common area & lift and proportionate rights
in the land measuring 299.8.sq yds.
(d) Pass a decree of recovery in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 & 2 for
a sum of Rs. 71,33,333/- towards Rs. 33.33 Lakh as ⅓rd estimative share of plaintiff in Rs.
l Crore and Rs. 38 Lakh as interest on the same @ 12% p.a. from 14.5.2010 till date of
filing, with further pendent-lite and future interest @12% p.a. till actual recovery.

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 4 of 14

(e) Pass a decree of rendition in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 & 2
directing them to give complete account of the HUF fund of Rs. l Crore being the balance
sale proceeds of the Property No. B-335, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and the income
generated by them by investing the same or keeping in bank account and determine the
share of the plaintiff in the same and accordingly pass decree for recovery of the amount so
determined to be the share of the plaintiff if found to be in access of Rs. 71,33,333/-
alongwith pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f 14.5.2010 till actual payment.
(f) Pass decree of rendition of account whereby directing the defendant No. 1 & 2 to give
true account of the HUF properties both movable properties, jewelry and immovable
properties received by them and properties/ assets created by them using the HUF funds
and rental income of HUF properties and also by using sale proceeds of the properties
belonging to the share of plaintiff sold by defendant no. 1 and accordingly determine the
share of the plaintiff and pass a decree of recovery of the amount falling to the share of the
plaintiff in the same in the interest of justice.
(g) Pass decree of permanent injunction whereby staying the further proceedings of case
No. F. No. DM/SE/274/19/747-51 titled as Smt. Neena Gupta V Aditya Gupta u/s 23 of
the Maintenance and welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Tribunal, New Delhi field by the
defendant No. 1 & 2 against the plaintiff and his family members in the interest of justice.
(h) Pass decree of permanent injunction whereby restraining the defendant No. 1 & 2 from
disposing the plaintiff from the exclusive possession of portion shown in red colour of site
plan of suit property No. C-580, III Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi with roof
rights and also of common portion shown in the green colour of the site plan illegally and
unlawfully in any manner.
(i) Pass such other order granting relief to the Plaintiff which this Hon'ble court thinks fit
and proper in the facts of the case;
(j) Award cost of the proceedings throughout.”
4. Along with the present suit , plaintiff also filed the present application for stay of
proceedings as initiated by his parents against him before the Maintenance Tribunal.
5. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiff that he along with his parents was residing in
property bearing no. B-335, New Friends Colony, New Delhi measuring 524 sq. yds. ever
since its purchase in the year 1979 till the year 2010. The said property was held by the
father of the plaintiff i.e. defendant no. 1 herein jointly with his two brothers, who were
having ⅓ share each in the said property . On 14.05.2010, a Collaboration Agreement was
executed and defendant no. 1 and 2 agreed to take Rs. 2 crores towards their ⅓ share in the
said property from the builder and relinquished all their rights in the said property .
Simultaneously, the defendant no. 1 and 2, on the same date purchased the suit property
i.e. C-580, 3 floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1 crore only.
6. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the earlier property i.e. property no. B-335,
New Friends Colony was an HUF in which the plaintiff along with defendant no. 1 were

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 5 of 14

having coparcenery rights to the extent of ⅓ share. The suit property which was purchased
from the sale proceeds of property no. B-335, New Friends Colony, is also an HUF
property and the plaintiff being the son and defendant no. 3 being the daughter have
coparcenery rights along with defendant no. 1 to the extent of ⅓ each of the ⅓ share of
defendant no. 1 in the suit property . The plaintiff and his wife along with their minor son
have been residing in the suit property since its purchase in the year 2010. Till date, the
plaintiff and his family are in possession of the suit property of the portion shown in red
colour of the site plan filed along with the plaint and common portion in joint possession
with defendant no. 1 and 2 as shown in green colour of the site plan.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 are descendants of
Lala Bhagirath Mal, who was the karta of HUF along with his three sons. He left behind
large number of HUF properties and other assets. Even after his death, the HUF created by
late Sh. Bhagirath Mal continued between his sons and all of them were conducting family
business. In the year 1969, a partition suit being Suit No. 376/1969 was filed by the
grandfather of plaintiff, i.e. father of defendant no. 1 before this Court. The same resulted
in compromise and various HUF properties were divided by the sons of late Sh. Bhagirath
Mal. It is submitted that the plaint of Suit No. 376/1969 shows that defendant no. 1 herein,
who was plaintiff no. 4 in the said suit , stated in the plaint that Sh. Bhagirath Mal,
grandfather of defendant no. 1 formed HUF with his sons and had considerable joint
properties. After his death, his three sons partitioned the bigger Joint Hindu family
properties, but there was no partition by metes and bounds.
8. It is the case of the plaintiff that the compromise application in Suit No. 376/1969 and
order dated 15.01.1970 in Suit No. 376/1969 prove that there was HUF in existence in
1953 at the time of death of late Sh. Bhagirath Mal.
9. It is further contended that the defendant no. 1 and 2 admitted in I.A. No. 3426/1983 in
Suit No. 1627/1982 that the property no. B-335, New Friends Colony purchased in the
year 1979 was with joint family funds and on the basis of their statement decree dated
30.08.1983 was passed holding that defendant no. 1 along with his three brothers with their
wives will have 1/4 share each in the same. The judicial admission made by defendant no.
1 and defendant no. 2 in I.A. No. 3426/1983 in Suit No. 1627/1982 are conclusive to
prove that property no. B-335, New Friends Colony was purchased using joint family
funds, and as such it was an HUF property . The plaintiff who was born in the year 1973
became coparcener with defendant no. 1 in the said property .
10. Thus, it is the contention of the plaintiff that property no. B-335, New Friends Colony
which was purchased using HUF funds, was sold in the year 2010. On the same date, suit
property i.e. property bearing no. C-580, 3 floor, New Friends Colony, Delhi was
purchased using the sale consideration of property no. B-335, New Friends Colony. As
such, property no. C-580, 3 floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi also became HUF
property . It is submitted that these facts prima facie prove the case of the plaintiff that the
suit property is an HUF property and plaintiff being the coparcener is having share in the
same.

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 6 of 14

11. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiff being the co- owner of the suit property
along with the defendants, has right to reside in the same till the time the property is not
partitioned and divided and the plaintiff is not given his share. The proceedings filed by
defendant no. 1 and 2 before the Maintenance Tribunal that are akin to suit for recovery of
possession or to eject the plaintiff from the suit property , are not maintainable under law
as the plaintiff is a co-owner of the property . Under law, a co-owner cannot file suit for
recovery of possession against another co- owner and only remedy is to file suit for
partition of the property .
12. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has already filed the present suit for partition,
therefore, the proceedings for recovery of possession or to eject the plaintiff from suit
property is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the Maintenance Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim of the plaintiff to adjudicate upon the
coparcenary rights of the plaintiff in the suit property . The Maintenance Tribunal also
does not have the jurisdiction to hold trial and declare the suit property to be the HUF
property . Therefore, it cannot try the petition of the defendant No. 1 to evict the plaintiff
from the suit property .
13. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that under Section 41(b) of The Specific Relief
Act, 1963 this Court has the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the Maintenance
Tribunal as the continuance of the same would cause extreme injustice to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff being the co-owner under law is entitled to occupy the suit property till the time it
is not partitioned as per law and the share of the plaintiff is not given to him.
14. In support of his submissions, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the
following judgments:
i. Paramjit Anand v. Mohan Lal, CS (OS) 575/2001 decided on 4.8.2018
ii. Saurabh Sharma v. Om Wati, CS (OS) 430/2016 decided on 25.5.2018
iii. Bhagwant P. Sulakhe v. Digambar Gopal, (1986) 1 SCC 366
iv. Kripal Kaur v. Jitender Pal Singh, JT (2015) 6 SC 314
v. D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam, (2003) 10 SCC 310
vi. Comm of Wealth Tax v. Chandersen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : AIR 1986 SC 1753
vii. Anita Anand v. Gargi Kapur, (2019) 256 DLT 84
viii. State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, (1969) 2 SCC 33
ix. Yudhishtir v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 : AIR 1987 SC 558
x. Vijay Manchanda v. Ashok Manchanda, (2010) 114 DRJ 467
xi. Cotton Corporation v. United Industrial Bank, (1983) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1983 SC 1272
xii. Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur ., 2018 AIOL 3291
xiii. Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket, JT (2003) 1 SC 382

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 7 of 14

15. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing for the defendants has submitted that the
present suit is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before
the Maintenance Tribunal against their son, i.e., the plaintiff herein. It is submitted that the
defendants have cited specific examples of the manner in which the plaintiff misbehaves
with them and how the plaintiff's actions are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Senior
Citizens Act.
16. The defendants have sought the assistance of the Maintenance Tribunal in removing
the plaintiff from the suit property , where the parties are jointly residing. Therefore, the
plaintiff has filed the present suit to delay and frustrate the proceedings before the
Tribunal.
17. It is further submitted that defendant No. 2 is the sole and absolute owner and in
possession of the suit property , having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed
dated 14.05.2010. The defendants are the victims of ill-treatment, harassment, physical and
mental torture suffered at the hands of the plaintiff, who has been allowed to stay with the
defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff along with his wife has been physically and
mentally harassing, abusing and torturing the defendants who are unable to protect and
defend themselves because of their ailments and old age.
18. It is the case on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff, his wife and son are
unauthorised occupants in the suit property . The defendants fear for their lives with the
continued presence of the plaintiff in the said property and will suffer irreparable injury in
case the plaintiff is permitted to continue to live in the suit property .
19. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the suit property is a self acquired
property and not HUF property . The defendant No. 2 has a registered Sale Deed in her
own name, therefore, the question of suit property being HUF does not arise. It is further
submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The suit property was
purchased in the sole name of defendant No. 2 vide registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2010.
The plaintiff was aged about 27 years in the year 2010 and was a major. Hence, the present
suit which has been filed in the year 2019 is barred by limitation.
20. It is further submitted that the property bearing No. B-335, New Friends Colony, New
Delhi was never bought from HUF funds. It is further contended that as per the settled law,
once a person receives any share in any property by way of partition decree, the ancestral
or coparcenary nature of the property comes to an end and the person who has received
his share by partition decree becomes the absolute and exclusive owner of the same.
21. In support of his submissions, ld. Counsel for the defendants has relied upon the
following judgments:
i. Punithavalli Ammal v. Minor Ramalingam, [(1970) 1 SCC 570]
ii. Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, [(1986) 3 SCC 567]
iii. S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, [(1994) 1 SCC 460]

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 8 of 14

iv. Darshana v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, [2018 SCC OnLine Del 11641]
22. The issue to be decided in the present application is regards entitlement of the plaintiff
to grant of interim protection for stay of the proceeding pending before the Maintenance
Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act that has been initiated for his eviction by his parents,
i.e., defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The main premise on which the plaintiff is seeking
order in his favour is that the suit property is HUF property and the plaintiff having
coparcenary right in the same, is entitled to continue to live there, pending the present suit
for partition of the said property .
23. As regards the Senior Citizens Act, it is to be noted that the said Act was enacted in
order to combat the social challenge of elderly parents not being looked after or provided
for by their children. Thus, in order to provide a simple and speedy relief to the suffering
parents, the Senior Citizens Act was enacted to provide for institutionalisation of a suitable
mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons.
24. It is important to note that Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act states that the
provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect over all other Acts inconsistent with this
Act. Furthermore, Section 2(f) of the said Act describes property as both Ancestral and
Self Acquired. Thus, as per Section 2(f) of the Senior Citizens Act, property has been
defined as follows:
“2. Definitions.—
(f) “property ” means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or
self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property ;”
25. Further, the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009
(Senior Citizens Rules) was amended by way of notification dated 28.07.2017, wherein
Rule 22(3) (1) (i) incorporates both Ancestral as well as Self Acquired Property from
which senior citizens may seek eviction of their children/legal heirs. Rule 22(3)(1) of the
Senior Citizens Rules provides for the procedure for eviction from property / residential
building of Senior Citizens/parents. Thus, the amended Rule after the Amendment of 2017
reads as under:
“22. Action plan for the protection of life and property of Senior Citizens:
“(3) (1) Procedure for eviction from property / residential building of Senior Citizens/
Parents,-
(i) A senior citizen/ parents may make an application before the Deputy Commissioner/
District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his
property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible
or intangible and include rights or interests in such property on account of his non-
maintenance and ill-treatment.
26. This Court in the case of Smt. Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 10535 has held that the contention that the property in question is ancestral

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 9 of 14

or HUF is not relevant in view of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017. Thus, it was held that after the aforesaid amendment,
Rule 22(3) (1) (i) was amended to state that the parents can ask for eviction of his son,
daughter, etc. from their property , whether Ancestral or Self Acquired. Thus, it has been
held as follows:
“21. The contention that the property in question was not Dhani Ram's self- acquired
property and, therefore, his application for eviction was not maintainable, is also
unmerited. Dhani Ram had explained that the property in question was allotted to her
mother Smt. Bahuti Devi on 04.05.1967 and he had acquired the property by virtue of a
registered Will dated 28.01.1968. The contention that the property in question is ancestral
or HUF property prima facie does not appear to be sustainable. However, the said issue is
not relevant as by virtue of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017. Rule 22(3)(1)(i) was amended to read as under:—
“(i) A senior citizen/ parents may make an application before the Deputy Commissioner/
District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his
property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible
or intangible and include rights or interests in such property on account of his non-
maintenance and ill-treatment.”
22. It is apparent from the plain language of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) as quoted above that a senior
citizen is also entitled to evict his son, daughter or legal heir from his property irrespective
of whether it is an ancestral or self-acquired property .”
27. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aarshya Gulati (Through : Next Friend
Mrs. Divya Gulati) v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8801 has held
that in order to protect the property of Senior Citizens, whether moveable or immovable,
Ancestral or Self Acquired, Tangible or Intangible and includes rights or interests in such
property , the District Magistrate under the Senior Citizens Act may direct eviction
therefrom. The Division Bench has not only upheld the legality of the said Act but has also
gone to the extent of stating that we must bear in mind the objective of the Act in that the
protection of property must be understood to mean where a senior citizen retains the
property in his name and possession for his welfare and well being. Thus, it has been held
as follows:
“62. Now the question is whether the State Government could have formulated a summary
procedure for eviction. We must bear in mind the objective for which the Parliament has
enacted the Act, that is because of withering of the joint family system, a large number of
elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons,
particularly widowed women are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are
exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support which clearly
reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection of the older persons. Though the parents can claim
maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the procedure is both time
consuming as well as expensive. Hence, a need was felt to have simple, inexpensive and

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 10 of 14

speedy mechanism for parents/senior citizens to claim maintenance. The Act also provide
for protection of the life and property of the senior citizens/ parents. The “protection of
property ” must be understood to mean where a senior citizen retains the property in his
name and possession for his welfare and well being.
63. So, the objective of the Act being, to provide inexpensive and speedy procedure for the
protection of life and property of the senior citizens from the children/legal heirs, who are
expected to maintain parents/senior citizens by providing the basic amenities and physical
needs but refuse or fail to maintain/provide basic amenities which conduct shall amount to
ill-treatment and non-maintenance and shall be a ground for parents/senior citizens to seek
eviction of children/legal heir from the property , which is the only way for them to seek
protection of their property so that, they continue to have shelter over their head, and
sustain themselves independently without interference from their children/ legal heirs.
Further, a senior citizen cannot knock the door of civil Court to fight a legal battle to
obtain the possession of the property as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under
Section 27 of the Act. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (Retd.)
(supra) wherein in para 37 it is held as under:
“37. It cannot be said that in such a situation, where respondent No. 7 was at best living
with the permission of his parents, which permission stands long withdrawn, the appellants
and more specifically appellant No. 1 should be compelled to knock the door of the civil
court and fight a legal battle to obtain exclusive possession of the property . This would
defeat the very purpose of the said Act which has an over- riding effect qua any other
enactment in view of Section 3 of the said Act. Infact, the Civil Court has been precluded
from entertaining any matter qua which jurisdiction is vested under the said Act and
specifically bars granting any injunction. Respondent No. 7 is thus LPA No. 1007 of 2013
(O&M) required to move out of the premises to permit the appellants to live in peace and
civil proceedings can be only qua a claim thereafter if respondent No. 7 so chooses to
make in respect of the property at Chandigarh but without any interim injunction. It is not
the other way round that respondent No. 7 with his family keeps staying in the house and
asking the appellants to go to the Civil Court to establish their rights knowing fully well
that the time consuming civil proceedings may not be finished during the life time of
appellant No. 1. Infact, that is the very objective of respondent No. 7.””
28. Holding that words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as Social Welfare
Legislation, must be interpreted liberally and in accordance with the intent of those who
make it, in the case of Sunny Paul v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. 11640, it has been held
as follows:
17. A reading of the Rules framed by the Government of NCT clearly reflect that a senior
citizen can file an application seeking eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from
his self acquired or ancestral property on the ground of ill-treatment or non maintenance.
The vires of these Rules has not been challenged by the appellant. The limited challenge is
to the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal to order an eviction under the Act of 2007.

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 11 of 14

So noting the limited challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal and keeping in view the
fact that the enactment being a social legislation and the same requires to be given liberal
interpretation to achieve the mandate of the Act of 2007 i.e for the welfare of the parents
and senior citizens and for the protection of their life and property , there is no doubt that
the Tribunal does have the jurisdiction to direct vacation by the children of any property in
which the senior citizen has a right of residence/possession. In this regard, we may refer to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha
Krishna (1979) 2 SCC 468 wherein it was held that the construction which tends to make
any part of the Statute meaningless or ineffective must always be avoided and the
construction which advances the remedy intended by the Statute should be accepted.
18. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate (1995) 6 SCC 326, it was held that
words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human
rights legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions.
In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and
the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognized and reduced.
19. On a similar proposition, the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Anil Kumar (2017) 14
SCC 304 : AIR 2017 SC 2716 has by relying upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi
Narain Dhut . (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 4 Scale 36 held as under:—
“68. A statute is an edict of the Legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary to
seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of
those who make it and the duty of the court is to act upon the true intention of the
Legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to
choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature. This task
very often raises difficulties because of various reasons, inasmuch as the words used may
not be scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning and the language may be
an imperfect medium to convey one's thought or that the assembly of Legislatures
consisting of persons of various shades of opinion purport to convey a meaning which may
be obscure. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to foresee all
situations exhaustively and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where
its application may be called for. Nonetheless, the function of the Courts is only to
expound and not to legislate. Legislation in a modern State is actuated with some policy to
curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. The legislation is primarily
directed to the problems before the Legislature based on information derived from past and
present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar
problems arising in future. But, from the very nature of things, it is impossible to anticipate
fully the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in
hand may be called for, and, words chosen to communicate such indefinite referents are
bound to be in many cases lacking in clarity and precision and thus giving rise to
controversial questions of construction. The process of construction combines both literal
and purposive approaches. In other words the legislative intention i.e., the true or legal
meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the
enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 12 of 14

mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed. (See District Mining Officer v.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. (2001) 7 SCC 358 : JT (2001) 6 SC 183). It is also well settled that
to arrive at the intention of the legislation depending on the objects for which the
enactment is made, the Court can resort to historical, contextual and purposive
interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside.
(emphasis supplied)
69. It was also opined:
More often than not, literal interpretation of a statute or a provision of a statute results in
absurdity. Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the Courts should keep in
mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted. Justice Frankfurter of
U.S. Supreme Court in an article titled as Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes (47
Columbia Law Reports 527), observed that;
“legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some mischief, to supply an adequacy, to effect
a change of policy, to formulate a plan of Government. That aim, that policy is not drawn,
like nitrogen, out of the air; it is evidenced in the language of the statutes, as read in the
light of other external manifestations of purpose”.”
29. Reading of the aforesaid clearly shows that Senior Citizens have every right to protect
themselves and in case of ill- treatment and abuse by their children/ legal heirs, can
approach the Maintenance Tribunal for their eviction from their property of any kind,
which includes both Ancestral as well as Self Acquired Property .
30. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit property is HUF
property , in which the plaintiff has interests as a coparcener, is totally irrelevant to the
proceedings initiated under the Senior Citizens Act.
31. Whether or not the plaintiff has any interest or coparcenery right in the suit property ,
is subject matter of trial in the present suit . In case the plaintiff is able to establish his right
in the suit property , this Court has every authority to pass a decree of partition as per the
entitlement of the plaintiff. However, pendency of a partition suit by the son against his
parents is no deterrent or hindrance to proceeding with the matter before the Maintenance
Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act. The said proceedings can continue and relevant
orders can be passed by the competent authority under the said Act, irrespective of any
litigation for partition of the property in question.
32. It is also pertinent to note here that Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act stipulates in
clear terms that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of any matter to which
provisions of the said Act applies. Section 27 thus reads as under:
“27. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.—No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect
of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted
by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under
this Act.”

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 13 of 14

33. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present application is found to be
without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
CS (OS) 528/2019
34. List before the Roster Bench on 06.03.2023.

Printed by licensee : Meha Jain (Student) Page 14 of 14