RAJESH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court impugning Ext. P10 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 ('the Maintenance Act' for short).

(2.) According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 1st petitioner and father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner, has approached the Maintenance Tribunal with a baseless complaint against them, alleging that he and his wife were being ill-treated by them and consequentially driven out of their residential property. The petitioners assert that, in fact, the property in question had been mortgaged by the 3rd respondent when he had availed of a loan in the past and that when its repayment was defaulted, the 1st petitioner was forced to discharge the same, using the gold ornaments of the 2nd petitioner, given to her as "patrimony at the time of marriage" (sic) by her father and that the 3rd respondent, therefore, executed a Settlement Deed, document No. 2788/2009, in favour of the 1st petitioner thus settling the property in question in his name, as also a Sale Deed with respect to another property, bearing document No. 749/2011, in favour of both the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs, though it was shown as a lesser amount in the said deed. The petitioners have a further case that in addition to the above amount, another Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to the 1st petitioner's elder brother at the instance of the 3rd respondent and thus, that the property in question now fully belongs to them.

(3.) The petitioners submit that, however, the Maintenance Tribunal, without considering any of the afore factual circumstances in its proper perspective, has allowed the complaint of the 3rd respondent through Ext. P10 order, setting aside the Settlement Deed, bearing No. 2788/2009, under Section 23 of the Maintenance Act and they plead that this order be set aside. They also say that they had filed an appeal against Ext. P10 before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance Act, but that it was rejected holding that no appeal is maintainable under Section 16 thereof, except at the instance of the Senior Citizen. The petitioners thus pray that Ext. P10 be set aside and that the property in question be restored to them.