Bombay High Court
PRAVIN VITTHALRAO JADHAV AND ANRversusRUKHMINIBAI VITTHALRAO JADHAV AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal's orders stand and any property right claim must be pursued in a civil court.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order of the Senior Citizen Maintenance Appellate Tribunal that directed them to hand over possession of a house to respondent No.1, who had purchased the property under a registered sale deed. The Tribunal, and subsequently the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, upheld the respondent's claim of ownership and dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The petitioners argued that the property was bought using joint family funds and that they had contributed to its construction, alleging that the orders were erroneous. The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings on ownership were prima facie correct and that any claim by the petitioners to the property must be pursued in a civil court, not through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the orders of the Senior Citizen Maintenance Appellate Tribunal under writ jurisdiction
- Whether the petitioners have any right to possession of the house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- Whether the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioners' claim to the property is a civil court
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Maintenance Act
- senior citizen
- possession
- property dispute
- writ jurisdiction
- civil court
- appellate tribunal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17035
918-wp-4083-2026.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4083 OF 2026
Pravin Vitthalrao Jadhav And Anr
VERSUS
Rukhminibai Vitthalrao Jadhav And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Solanke Krushna S.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Kendre
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Krushna N. Bhosale
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 18, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present petition takes exception to order dated
24.03.2026 passed by Presiding Officer, Senior Citizen Maintenance
Appellate Tribunal/Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Appeal
No.16 of 2025 thereby upholding order dated 13.08.2025 passed by
Tribunal/Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
2. The respondent no.1 instituted proceedings before Sub
Divisional Officer, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar under provisions of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
seeking direction against petitioners not to disturb her possession over
suit property. The Tribunal recorded finding that suit house stands in
name of respondent no.1. It was purchased by her under registered
sale deed. Since then, she is enjoying ownership and possession of
suit property. The petitioners were disturbing her possession on
various counts. Eventually, order directing petitioners to deliver
918-wp-4083-2026.odt
(2)
possession of house property to respondent no.1 has been passed by
Tribunal. The petitioners preferred appeal under Section 16 before
Appellate Authority. The said appeal came to be dismissed upholding
order passed by Tribunal.
3. Learned advocate appearing for petitioners submits that
Plot No.7 was purchased after selling ancestral property. Even,
petitioners have contributed in construction of house. The respondent
no.1 filed an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on instigation of younger son of
respondent no.1 namely Rameshwar.
4. Prima facie, Authority found that respondent no.1 is a
sole purchaser of plot under registered sale deed. The petitioners
contention that purchase was out of joint family fund or money
received from sell of ancestral property cannot be considered at this
stage. If petitioners have any right in suit property, they are free to
exercise the same by approaching Civil Court. In this backdrop,
impugned orders need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
5. Writ Petition sans merit, hence, dismissed.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…