SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, January 09, 2025

Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2023 SCC OnLine Del 1127 : (2023) 300 DLT 689 : (2023) 2 DMC
480 : (2023) 3 HLR 612

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE MINI PUSHKARNA, J.)

Aditya Gupta … Plaintiff;

Versus
Narender Gupta and Others … Defendants.
CS (OS) 528/2019 and I.A. No. 14315/2019
Decided on February 24, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rajesh Mahindru, Advocate. [(M) : 9810194135 Email :
[email protected]]
Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw with Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocates.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
rd
3 are having coparcenary rights to the extent of ⅓ 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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rd
33.33 Lakh as ⅓ 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.
(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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
rd
brothers, who were having ⅓ share each in the said property. On
14.05.2010, a Collaboration Agreement was executed and defendant
rd
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
rd
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 having coparcenery rights to
the extent of ⅓rd 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 ⅓rd each of the ⅓rd 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 1/4th 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, 3rd floor, New Friends Colony, Delhi was purchased using the
sale consideration of property no. B-335, New Friends Colony. As such,
rd
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.
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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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]
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
1
Delhi 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.
Thus, it has been held as follows:
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“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
2
Delhi 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
3
Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi , 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. 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.”
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Thursday, January 09, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Merusagar Samantaray
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. List before the Roster Bench on 06.03.2023.

———
1
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10535

2
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8801

3
2018 SCC OnLine Del 11640

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.