JOSE Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), through which Ext.P2 settlement deed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal under Sec. 23(1) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Subhashini v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others; 2020 (5) KHC 195. It is submitted that the only right reserved in favour of the petitioner before the Tribunal (late Rosamma) was a right to reside in the property, which is clearly a reservation of life interest. It is submitted that the Full Bench has clearly observed that reservation of life interest is not a condition that could enable the filing of an application under Sec. 23 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent (sister of the petitioner) and the daughter of the deceased Rosamma would submit that Ext.P2 document contains sufficient stipulations that would give jurisdiction to the Tribunal to exercise its power under Sec. 23(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the property in question is a small extent of property having an extent of 5 cents and the stipulation reserving life interest was sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case for the Tribunal to have exercised jurisdiction under Sec. 23(1) of the Act.