Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 23 Where Applicant Is Not a Senior Citizen and Property Transfer is Indirect.

Respondent No. 3 (Smt. Sulochana) filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the Act, 2007") seeking to declare gift deeds executed by her late husband in favor of their sons as null and void

At the time of filing, Respondent No. 3 described herself as 55 years old

Simultaneously, she had instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 30/2023) for partition and declaration that the same gift deeds were not binding on her share

Despite the limited relief sought regarding the deeds, the Respondent No. 2 (Tribunal) passed an order on July 2, 2024, granting police protection to Respondent No. 3

The Petitioner (daughter-in-law) challenged this order before the High Court of Karnataka

The court applied Section 2(h) of the Act, 2007, which strictly defines a "Senior Citizen" as an Indian citizen aged sixty years or above

It further applied Section 23 of the Act, 2007, which empowers the Tribunal to declare transfers void only if a senior citizen has transferred their own property subject to a condition of maintenance that the transferee subsequently fails to fulfill

The court upheld the principle that statutory tribunals are forums of limited jurisdiction and cannot assume the plenary powers of a Civil Court to adjudicate complex questions of title, fraud, or succession

The court reasoned that the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction because attainment of 60 years is a "jurisdictional fact"; since Respondent No. 3 admitted she was 55 (or 58 in civil pleadings), she did not qualify as a "Senior Citizen"

the court found the application legally untenable under Section 23 because the challenged gift deeds were executed by the husband, not the applicant, and were not conditional on her maintenance

The court observed that the dispute involved proprietary rights and allegations of fraud—matters requiring detailed evidence that falls exclusively within the province of the Civil Court, which was already seized of the matter in O.S. No. 30/2023

the court noted that the Tribunal’s grant of police protection was a material irregularity as it was not prayed for and traveled beyond the scope of Section 23

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated July 2, 2024

The court reserved liberty to Respondent No. 3 to pursue her remedies in the pending civil suit, clarifying that the Civil Court must decide the claims independently of the Tribunal’s observations