Proceedings under Senior Citizens Act abate on senior citizen’s death; heirs must seek civil remedy: Punjab & Haryana HC

Jasbir Singh, a senior citizen, initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“2007 Act”), seeking cancellation of a relinquishment deed dated 10 May 2016 concerning 19 kanal 11 marlas of agricultural land.

He alleged that the property had been transferred to his son, Bachitter Singh, on the understanding that the son would maintain and care for him, which he failed to do.

The Maintenance Tribunal, Ajnala, passed an ex parte order under Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act cancelling the deed. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed Bachitter Singh’s appeal.

The learned Single Judge set aside both orders, holding that Bachitter Singh was residing abroad and had not been duly served; service upon his spouse did not constitute valid service. The matter was remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

During the pendency of the writ proceedings, Jasbir Singh died. His daughter, Kanwaljit Kaur, filed the intra-court appeal on his behalf and sought impleadment as his legal representative.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that no cause survived under the 2007 Act after the death of the senior citizen.

Whether proceedings initiated by a senior citizen under the 2007 Act can continue after the senior citizen’s death?

Whether the deceased senior citizen’s daughter could be impleaded as his legal representative and pursue the appeal under the 2007 Act?

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication?

The Court applied the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly Section 23(1), which permits cancellation of a transfer of property where the transferee fails to provide the senior citizen with basic physical needs and amenities.

It relied principally on the Division Bench decision in Gurdeep Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, LPA-2402-2017, decided on 21 July 2023, which held that proceedings under the 2007 Act become infructuous or otiose upon the death of the senior citizen because the statutory right and protection are personal to the senior citizen and co-terminous with his or her life.

The Court also referred to the principle that legal heirs cannot pursue benefits under the special statute merely because they succeed to the deceased’s property rights; their remedies, if any, lie before the ordinary civil court.

The Bombay High Court authorities relied upon by the appellant were distinguished on their facts.

The Court held that Jasbir Singh’s claim was a personal statutory claim arising from his status as a senior citizen. Since he had died during the pendency of the proceedings, the protection and relief available under the 2007 Act could no longer be pursued by his heirs.

The Court noted that the orders cancelling the relinquishment deed had already been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground of non-service and denial of a fair opportunity to Bachitter Singh. Consequently, the deed stood revived, subject to any remedy available in law.

The Court further observed that Kanwaljit Kaur could not alone be impleaded as the deceased’s legal representative to the exclusion of the other legal heirs, including Bachitter Singh.

After Jasbir Singh’s death, the dispute was essentially one concerning property rights among his children, none of whom qualified as a “senior citizen” under the 2007 Act.

They therefore could not invoke the special statutory remedy and were required to pursue any available claim before the civil court.

The Bombay High Court decisions did not assist the appellant because they concerned cases where the transfer had already been annulled and involved materially different factual circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the learned Single Judge’s order setting aside the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal orders was left undisturbed.

The parties, including the legal heirs, were granted liberty to pursue any remedy otherwise available to them in accordance with law, including before the ordinary civil court.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.