MP High Court Favors Senior Citizen in Property Dispute, Dismisses Children’s Plea

Last Updated on September 17, 2024 by Amit Patra

In a pathbreaking judgment which has a direct implication on the question of rights of senior citizens, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition by children against their elderly father in a property dispute case. In simple terms, it underlined the increasing legal protection for the senior citizenry in India, further affirming the misuse of the course of legal action and proceedings with a view to prolong the disputes.

Basically, it was a dispute over a house between an elderly father and his children. The father had approached the SDO under the said Act, stating that his children caused nuisance and interfered in his use of the property. After conducting an inquiry, the SDO ordered the children to vacate the premises and not to interfere in any manner in the life of the appellant.

The children, thus, moved the High Court against the order, claiming ancestral ownership of the house. Their contention was that the property was gifted to their grandfather in the year 1974 and, as such, belonged to them jointly and was the source of their livelihood. The petitioners also attempted to invoke the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to claim a right to reside in the shared household.

While disposing of the case, Justice Vivek Agarwal rejected their petition, observing, “Their only aim seems to be prolonging the litigation proceedings.” The court said it could not permit this at the cost of a senior citizen protected under the 2007 Act. It upheld the order passed by the SDO, noting it was in consonance with the purpose for which the Senior Citizens Act had been enacted and the MP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules 2009.

The High Court passed the judgment on some decisive factors; the first is that it admitted the jurisdiction of the SDO under Rule 20 of the 2009 Rules, to interfere and settle the property dispute among the senior citizens. Second, it held that invocation of the Domestic Violence Act would not apply because none of the petitioners were females, and there was no issue of domestic violence. Finally, the court also awarded a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioners as a token of disapproval for attempting to abuse the processes of law.

This judgment, in particular, strengthens the legal rights of the senior citizen in property-related disputes and serves as a deterrent for the filing of frivolous litigation by relatives. This further underlines the commitment of the judiciary for upholding the rights and dignity of the elderly enshrined in special legislation.