Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Lack Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Civil Property Rights or Effect Partition

The petitioner in the lead petition, an 83-year-old mother/senior citizen, sought a writ of mandamus to enforce an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

This order allotted four acres of agricultural land from joint family properties and conferred cultivation rights upon her.

Simultaneously, her son (Respondent No. 5) challenged the same order and its affirmation by the Deputy Commissioner, contending that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("Senior Citizens Act") lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil rights or partition joint family property.

Pending adjudication, the High Court had directed the son to pay ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner/Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act to allot specific portions of joint family property or confer cultivation rights

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are legally sustainable

Specifically, it noted that Sections 3 and 4 empower the Tribunal to grant maintenance to neglected senior citizens

Section 23 permits the declaration of property transfers as void under specific conditions of neglect

The court held that the Act does not vest the Tribunal with the powers of a Civil Court to determine title, partition, or separate possession

The Court reasoned that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded the statutory contours of the Senior Citizens Act.

While the Act provides for maintenance and the protection of property already owned/transferred by senior citizens, it does not authorize authorities to undertake an exercise akin to a partition suit or the adjudication of proprietary rights in undivided joint family property.

The Court observed that the Tribunal cannot assume the role of a Civil Court.

Consequently, even though the authority was motivated by the petitioner’s vulnerability, the direction to earmark four acres was "wholly alien to the statutory scheme" and thus void ab initio (non-est) for want of jurisdiction.

To ensure the welfare of the octogenarian mother, the Court directed the son to continue paying ₹10,000 per month as maintenance during her lifetime.

W.P. No. 108602/2025 was disposed of as the prayer for implementation did not survive.

The Court clarified that the mother remains at liberty to institute a civil suit for partition before a competent Civil Court.