Statutory Protection of Senior Citizens' Property is Limited to Matters Specifically Defined Under Section 23.

The petitioner, a senior citizen and son of late Bhagwandas, claimed lawful ownership and settled possession of House No. 373, Kasba Rath

The private respondents claimed title via a Will dated 18.08.2004 executed by the deceased, subsequently executing two sale deeds on 17.11.2025

The petitioner alleged these documents were forged and sought a Writ of Mandamus for police protection and a declaration that the sale deeds were void under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the Act, 2007")

Civil litigation between the parties was already pending

1. Whether the authorities under the Act, 2007 have the jurisdiction to adjudicate internal property disputes and declare title deeds void outside the specific parameters of Section 23

2. Whether the State's duty to protect the property of senior citizens under Section 22(2) includes the power of eviction or the resolution of intricate questions of title

Section 22 of the Act, 2007, which mandates a comprehensive action plan for the protection of life and property

Section 23, which allows the Tribunal to declare a transfer void only if it was conditional upon the transferee providing basic amenities and the transferee failed to do so

Supreme Court ruling in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, establishing that such conditions must be pleaded and proved

Full Bench decision in Omkar Nath Gaur v. District Magistrate, which overruled Shivani Verma v. State of U.P., holding that the Act does not create a special adjudicatory forum for eviction or general title disputes beyond the "limited window" of Section 23

The Court reasoned that the Act is social legislation intended for maintenance and welfare, not a substitute for civil courts regarding general property litigation

Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court held that since the legislature specifically empowered the Tribunal to declare transfers void under the narrow conditions of Section 23, it impliedly excluded jurisdiction over all other title disputes

The petitioner failed to plead that the sale deeds were executed subject to a condition of maintenance; rather, he challenged the basic validity of a Will and subsequent deeds

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner was attempting to bypass a full civil trial for a summary procedure that the statutory authorities lacked the jurisdiction to provide

The writ petition was dismissed as the dispute involved intricate questions of title already pending in civil court

The Court held that Section 27 bars civil court jurisdiction only on matters where the Act applies, and since this title dispute fell outside Section 23, the parties were at liberty to pursue remedies in Civil Court