PRASHANT PRAKASH BHANJI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THORUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38782

                                                  (1)                         12 WP 5460 OF 2024


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                12 WRIT PETITION NO. 5460 OF 2024

                             PRASHANT PRAKASH BHANJI AND ANOTHER
                                               VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THORUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
           Mr. N. K. Tungar, Advocate for the Petitioners
           Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State
           Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
                                                  …

                                              CORAM      : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                              DATE       : 24.08.2026

           PER COURT :-

           .            Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners for quite some time

           and learned Advocate for the respondents.


           2.           The present proceedings arise out of an application under the

           Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for brevity “the Act”). The relationship amongst the

           parties is not disputed. The petitioner No.1 has three brothers. It is submitted

           that there had been a family settlement amongst the parties in respect of the

           properties. Amongst the properties, the subject matter of the present litigation

           is a residential house situated at City Survey No.1075, Village Tuljapur, Taluka

           Tuljapur, District Dharashiv. It is not in dispute that the said property is a self-

           acquired property of respondent No.4-father.


           3.           Respondent No.4-father filed an application before the authority
                                       (2)                       12 WP 5460 OF 2024


under the Act seeking directions against the present petitioners to vacate the

residential premises bearing City Survey No.1075 which is numbered as Nagar

Parishad House No.504/3/1. After hearing the parties, the first authority

allowed the application. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the

appellate authority came to be dismissed by order dated 27.03.2024. As

against the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.


4.           Mr. Tungar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that as

per the voluntary settlement, it was also the duty of the other brothers to

maintain the parents. He would submit that in terms of the settlement, the

other brothers have got their respective shares. However, the petitioners have

been deprived of any benefit. He would submit that handing over of the

subject matter property was in the light of the settlement and hence, he

submits that there was no occasion to file an application under Section 23 of

the Act. As such, facts were not demonstrated by the respondents to take

recourse to Section 23 of the Act. He would rely upon paragraph 12 of the

judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh

Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Anr., in Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021. He would

submit that since there was no reciprocal condition imposed upon the

petitioners nor there was demonstration as to any transfer for consideration at

the hands of the petitioners, the authorities were not justified in exercising

jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act.
                                      (3)                        12 WP 5460 OF 2024


5.          Learned Advocate for the respondents supports the order passed

by both the authorities under the Act. I have heard the parties at length.

Section 23 of the Act speaks thus :


       “23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

       (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement
       of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his
       property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall
       provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
       transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such
       amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property
       shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or
       under undue influence and shall at the option of the
       transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

       (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive
       maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof
       is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be
       enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of
       the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
       transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

       (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights
       under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his
       behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to
       sub-section (1) of section 5.”


6.          It cannot be disputed that the document on which the petitioners

place reliance is merely an unregistered instrument laying down the terms and

conditions of settlement amongst the family members. There is no transfer in

the eyes of law as contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act.
                                      (4)                          12 WP 5460 OF 2024


7.          In view of this, and considering the undisputed fact that the

subject matter property is the self-acquired property of respondent No.4, the

arguments of learned Advocate for the petitioners cannot be accepted.


8.          It is pointed out by Mr. Tungar, learned Advocate for the

petitioners that the petitioner No.1 himself is a disabled person and has no

means of livelihood. He submits that the application was moved at the behest

of the other brothers. Learned Advocate for the respondents, however, points

out that another residential self-acquired property of the father bearing Plot

No.16-A has already been transferred to the present petitioner. He has

produced on record evidence showing that the said property has already been

transferred to the petitioner. On being questioned by this Court, the petitioner

No.1 who is personally present before this Court, submits that the said

property has been sold by him vide a registered sale deed. Apparently, the

petition cannot be said to be a bonafide one.


9.          In view of this, I do not find that the petitioners have made out a

case for taking exception to the orders passed by both the authorities.


10.         In view of this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.




                                                   [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW