Senior Citizens Act tribunals cannot cancel allegedly forged gift deeds; civil court remedy lies, Allahabad High Court rules

The petitioner, Balveer Singh, aged 68 years, claimed ownership of House No. 89 (New No. 210), Lalitpur, which he described as his sole residential property.

He alleged that his daughter, Garima Yadav, and son-in-law, Devendra Singh Yadav, had forged a registered gift deed dated 18 November 2023 in favour of Garima and forcibly dispossessed him from the property.

The petitioner lodged an FIR alleging offences including forgery, cheating, assault and criminal intimidation; after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the criminal case remained pending.

He approached the authorities under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”), seeking restoration of possession and eviction of respondents nos. 3 and 4.

Pursuant to an earlier order directing the District Magistrate to decide his representation, the District Magistrate, Lalitpur rejected the application on 23 June 2026.

Whether a Tribunal constituted under the Act can declare a registered gift deed void and order eviction where the senior citizen alleges that the deed was fabricated or obtained through forgery?

Whether the petitioner’s claim fell within Section 23(1) of the Act, notwithstanding his allegation that the gift deed did not contain a condition requiring the transferee to provide maintenance and basic amenities?

Whether the Tribunal possesses an incidental power to order eviction for protecting the life, limb, property or maintenance of a senior citizen?

Whether the District Magistrate acted unlawfully by constituting committees and conducting the inquiry in an administrative manner?

Section 23(1) of the Act applies where a senior citizen has validly transferred property by gift or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee subsequently refuses or fails to do so; in that event, the transfer may be declared void by the Tribunal.

Section 23 is not a general provision conferring jurisdiction to adjudicate title, cancel documents or determine allegations of forgery.

The Tribunal may, as an incidental and exceptional measure, order eviction where necessary to secure the maintenance, protection, life or limb of a senior citizen, but such power is not equivalent to the plenary jurisdiction of a civil court and must be exercised sparingly.

The Court relied on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, (2021) 15 SCC 730, and the principles recognised in Ravi Kant Gupta and Kamla Kant Mishra regarding incidental eviction powers under the Act.

A claim that a conveyance is forged or void ab initio must be adjudicated by the competent civil court, which can grant consequential reliefs concerning cancellation, title and possession.

Proceedings before the Tribunal must follow the judicial procedure contemplated by Sections 6 and 8 of the Act; administrative committee-based inquiries are impermissible where the Tribunal is determining rights or interests of parties.

The petitioner’s principal case was not that he had validly transferred the property subject to a maintenance condition which the respondents subsequently breached; rather, he alleged that he never executed the gift deed and that his signatures had been forged.

Section 23(1) presupposes a valid transfer by the senior citizen and a subsequent failure by the transferee to provide agreed maintenance and basic amenities. It therefore could not be invoked to determine whether the gift deed itself was fabricated or legally non-existent.

Although the Tribunal may order eviction as an incidental remedy where necessary to protect a senior citizen’s life, limb or maintenance, that power does not authorise it to adjudicate title or cancel a registered instrument on allegations of forgery.

The petitioner’s allegations concerning forgery, title and possession were matters for a civil suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed and consequential reliefs.

The Court also disapproved the District Magistrate’s use of committees for inquiry, observing that proceedings under the Act must follow the statutory judicial procedure; however, since the petitioner’s substantive claim was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, that procedural defect did not justify interference with the final order.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from instituting an appropriate civil action for cancellation of the gift deed, declaration of rights and recovery of possession before the competent civil court.