Section 23 relief belongs to the senior citizen or eligible organization, not a child asserting personal property rights.

The petitioner alleged that the official respondents had failed to act on his FIR dated 22 January 2025 and complaints concerning the treatment of his mother, Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar, by the private respondents. He sought her rescue from alleged confinement and distress, and challenged the transfer of her properties by gift deeds. The private respondents denied mistreatment, stating that their mother had dementia and that the gates were kept closed for her safety

The petitioner also asserted that the gift deeds affected his rights in the properties. He sought relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the 2007 Act”).

Section 22 of the 2007 Act places responsibility on the District Magistrate to ensure implementation of the Act and permits the delegation of relevant functions to a subordinate officer.

Under Section 23(1), where a senior citizen transfers property subject to a condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer may, at the transferor’s option, be declared void by the Tribunal. Where the senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under Section 23, an eligible organisation identified in the Explanation to Section 5(1) may act on the senior citizen’s behalf.

The Court held that the Section 27 bar did not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Civil Court to vindicate his own rights allegedly affected by the gift deeds.

The petitioner’s asserted interest in the gifted properties did not entitle him to claim Section 23 relief for himself; that remedy belonged to the senior citizen, or an eligible organisation acting on her behalf if she could not enforce it.

However, the allegations of abandonment or distress, together with the respondents’ statements that the senior citizen suffered from dementia, warranted an inquiry by the District Commissioner or an authorised subordinate officer.

The Court also directed an inquiry into the gift deeds to determine whether the statutory conditions in Section 23(1) were met. Because the petitioner claimed independent rights in the properties, Section 27 did not bar him from pursuing those claims before the Civil Court.

The authority was also directed to inquire into the gift deeds dated 16 October 2023 and 9 August 2024 and take appropriate action under Section 23(1), if applicable. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Civil Court regarding any effect of the gift deeds on his own property rights; no costs were awarded.