2025 INSC 404 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26651 of 2023)

SAMTOLA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the

earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not

even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what

to say of building one family for the world. The very concept

of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one

person one family.

2

3. This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation

with their children (sons) and the children (sons) are in

litigation with their parents.

4. One Kallu Mal (dead) aged about 75 years and his wife

Samtola Devi aged about 68 years had three sons and two

daughters namely Krishna Kumar, Janardan Kumar,

Rajender Kumar, Sushila Gupta and Anjali Kumari

respectively. Out of the two daughters, Sushila Gupta is

married to Suresh Narottam Das Gupta whereas Anjali

Kumari is unmarried. The said Kallu Mal has a house

bearing No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur and various

shops therein, precisely three shops in the lower part of

the house. One of the shops is occupied by the elder son

Krishna Kumar who is presently carrying on the utensil

business from the said shop which he had taken over from

his father. The other son Janardan is doing electrical

business from the other shop. The third son Rajender

Kumar is dead and his wife has remarried whereas his son

is living with the eldest son Krishna Kumar. The third shop

has been gifted by Kallu Mal to the younger daughter

Anjali Kumari, who has rented it out at the rate of

3

Rs. 26,500/- per month. Apart from the above house and

three shops, late Kallu Mal had certain other properties as

well.

5. It appears that the relations of Kallu Mal and his wife

Samtola Devi were not cordial with their sons.

Consequently, on 04.08.2014, Kallu Mal made an

application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur

alleging that his eldest son Krishna Kumar often beats him

and tortures him mentally and physically. He has

friendship with people having criminal antecedents. He

often abuses him. His behaviour resultantly deteriorated

his position in the society. Therefore, requesting the SDM

to take appropriate action against him in accordance with

law.

6. In 2017, Kallu Mal along with his wife Samtola Devi

initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against

their two sons which came to be registered as Criminal

Case No.828 of 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Sultanpur. The Family Court vide order dated

04.12.2018 awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000/- to Kallu

Mal and his wife Samtola Devi each, total Rs.8,000/- per

4

month payable equally by two sons Krishna Kumar and

Janardan Kumar by the 7

th day of each calendar month.

Aforesaid order is final and conclusive as it has not been

challenged till date by any party in any higher forum.

7. It appears that the two daughters of Kallu Mal started

interfering in the family matters concerning him, his wife

Samtola Devi and his two sons. The eldest daughter

Sushila Gupta got a gift deed of the lower part of northern

portion of the aforesaid House No.778 in her favour. She

even got the sale deed executed of the southern part of the

house in a favour of her husband Suresh Narottam Das

Gupta.

8. Apart from the above, the two daughters managed for the

transfer of a residential plot by their father Kallu Mal in

favour of one Amrita Singh vide sale deed dated

14.12.2017. Another plot of 121 sq. meter was transferred

vide sale deed dated 20.03.2019 in favour of Suresh

Narottam Das Gupta, the husband of the eldest daughter.

9. It also appears that the eldest son Krishna Kumar married

in 2018 to a girl from another caste/clan, as such Kallu

Mal and his wife got annoyed with him.

5

10. In the light of the aforesaid background, Kallu Mal and his

wife Samtola Devi initiated proceedings under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act, 2007

1 on 29.04.2019 before the Maintenance

Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur.

The Tribunal registered it as Case No.2527 of 2019

2. The

Tribunal referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer but

the conciliation was unsuccessful.

11. Kallu Mal in the said case alleged that House No.778

Khairabad, Sultanpur is his self-acquired property which

has shops in the lower part. In one of the shops, he was

operating his utensil business since 1971 till 2010. Taking

advantage of his illness, the business of the said shop was

taken over by his eldest son Krishna Kumar who later

started pressurizing him to sell out the house. He further

alleged that Krishna Kumar was not looking after his daily

needs, not even his medical expenditure, rather was

torturing him mentally and physically. Therefore, he

requested the Tribunal to evict him from the house so that

he could make his own arrangements for peaceful living.

1

Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Senior Citizens Act’

2

Kallumal etc vs. Krishna Kumar

6

12. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence on

record and noting the submission of the parties vide order

dated 08.07.2019, directed Krishna Kumar not to

encroach upon any part of the house without the

permission of his parents except the shop in which he is

carrying utensil business and the room with a bathroom

occupied by him in which he resides with his wife and

children. It was also provided that if he humiliates his

parents then eviction proceedings would be initiated

against him. The two sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan

Kumar were directed to continue to pay maintenance to

the parents, as directed by the Family Court. The Incharge

of Police Station Kotwali Nagar was directed to visit the

house of Kallu Mal either himself or through regional Sub-

Inspector every 10 days so as to enquire if they are living

peacefully and that no humiliation or harassment is

caused to the parents by Krishna Kumar.

13. Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi were not satisfied by

the above decision and as such they preferred appeal

before the Appellate Tribunal , District Magistrate

Sultanpur. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order

7

passed by the SDM and directed for the eviction of Krishna

Kumar.

14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Krishna Kumar

invoked Writ Jurisdiction of High Court by filing Writ-C

No.35884 of 2009

3. The High Court partly allowed the said

writ petition by setting aside the order of eviction passed

against Krishna Kumar but maintained the other

directions given by the Tribunal.

15. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kallu Mal

died and the litigation is being pursued by his wife Samtola

Devi since then. Thus, Samtola Devi has filed this appeal

seeking eviction of her son Krishna Kumar from the house

in question after setting aside the order of the High Court.

16. We have heard Shri Pallav Shisodiya, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Shri SK Saxena, learned

senior counsel for the respondents.

17. Shri Pallav Shisodiya, learned senior counsel on behalf of

the appellant-Samtola Devi contended that since the

house-in-dispute/property is the self-acquired property of

her husband late Kallu Mal, the respondent No.4 Krishna

3

Krishna Kumar vs. State of UP and Ors

8

Kumar, the eldest son of the appellant, had no authority

of law to stay and reside in the said house against the

wishes of his parents, more particularly, when he had been

mentally and physically torturing them and was not caring

to the day-to-day needs and the maintenance of the

parents. He relied upon the recent decision of this Court

in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.

4 to

contend that in proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act,

the Tribunal is empowered, if necessary, to order the

eviction of the son/relative if found expedient to ensure the

protection of the senior citizens.

18. Shri SK Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent No.4-Krishna Kumar submitted that the entire

story, as alleged by the appellant/parents, is concocted

and is not true. Krishna Kumar is living only in a one room

portion with attached bathroom and is not occupying any

other place in the house except one shop on the ground

floor wherein he is continuing with the utensil business of

his father who was unable to carry on the same on account

of his infirm and ill-health. He had been maintaining the

4

(2025) 2 SCC 787

9

parents and is even paying the maintenance as awarded

by the Family Court. The said Krishna Kumar has a share

in the said house and it does not exclusively belong to his

father. He has not only filed a Suit No.944/2019 for the

cancellation of the gift deed executed by his father in

favour of the unmarried daughter but has also filed

another Suit No.140/2019 to declare him to be the co-

owner of the said property to the extent of 1/6

th share in

it. Therefore, it is not correct to allege that the property

exclusively belongs to Kallu Mal and that he has no legal

right to reside therein.

19. Kallu Mal has brought on record the copy of the sale deed

dated 16.07.1971 by which he had purchased the

property/house-in-dispute. Krishna Kumar, on the other

hand, had brought on record the copy of the gift deed

executed by Kallu Mal in favour of her younger daughter

Anjali in respect of one of the shops as also the rent

agreement executed by Anjali letting out the shop in favour

of Mohd. Ijhar and Mohd. Shadab on 03.11.2017. A copy

of the sale deed executed by Kallu Mal in favour of his son-

in-law in respect of Plot No.179 was also placed on record.

10

The copy of the order of the Family Court fixing

maintenance under Section 125 was also adduced in

evidence as also the copy of the Suit No.140/2019.

20. It is also part of the record that Kallu Mal had transferred

a plot of land in favour of one Amrita Singh, wife of Manoj

Kumar vide sale deed dated 14.12.2017. Another plot

measuring about 121 sq. mt. was sold by him in favour of

his son-in-law Suresh Narottam Das Gupta on

20.03.2019.

21. It has come in the evidence on record as admitted by the

younger daughter Anjali that one shop has been given by

Kallu Mal to her which she has let out and that the house

has also been gifted partly to her and partly to her elder

sister Sushila. She also admitted that her father had sold

a plot of land to Amrita Singh and to his son-in-law Suresh

Narottam Das Gupta.

22. Janardan Kumar, the other son of Kallu Mal, in his

statement before the Tribunal admits that his father had

filed a suit for maintenance against both the sons and that

they are paying maintenance according to the order passed

by the Family Court. He even stated that he would not

11

claim any right or share in the property in future. He

admits that since Krishna Kumar abuses the parents, the

entire dispute would be resolved if he vacates the property.

23. A similar statement was made by Anupriya, the wife of

Janardan Kumar.

24. The aforesaid documents prima facie indicate that the

property was purchased by Kallu Mal in 1971. He had

transferred the same partly in favour of his elder daughter

and partly in favour of his son-in-law whereas one shop in

the ground floor has been gifted to the younger daughter.

That apart, institution of the two suits by Krishna Kumar

for cancellation of the gift deed/sale deed and the suit for

declaration of his 1/6

th share in the property indicates that

there is a contest between the parents and Krishna Kumar

as to whether the father could have executed a gift and sale

deed as alleged or if the son had 1/6

th share therein. So,

unless the aforesaid dispute culminates, it cannot be said

that the father was the exclusive owner of the property and

that the son had no right/share in it.

25. Additionally, if the contention of the parents is accepted

that the house-in-dispute/property is the self-acquired

12

property of Kallu Mal and belongs exclusively to him, since

he has transferred the property in favour of his daughters

and the son-in-law Suresh Narottam Das Gupta, he has

ceased to be the owner of the property. Therefore, in such

a situation neither Kallu Mal nor his wife retains any right

to seek eviction of any person occupying any part of it.

26. In view of the facts as revealed from the pleadings and the

evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that Kallu

Mal had transferred the house in favour of his two

daughters and the two plots, one in favour of his son-in-

law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh. He had gifted

one shop to the younger daughter Anjali. Therefore, ex-

facie he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up

to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any,

against the occupants of any part of it.

27. It is in this background coupled with the fact that under

the Senior Citizens Act, senior citizens are simply entitled

to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/relatives

that the Tribunal disposed of the matter with the

categorical direction that Krishna Kumar would continue

to occupy and carry on business from the shop in question

13

and at the same time would reside only in a one room

portion with attached bathroom without encroaching upon

any other part of the house.

28. It was only in the contingency of Krishna Kumar not

behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the

parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary

against him.

29. There is no complaint or any material on record to indicate

that after the aforesaid order Krishna Kumar has in any

way humiliated his parents especially the appellant or has

interfered with her living. It is not in dispute that he has

been paying maintenance as directed by the Family Court.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, if he has been

living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father,

in which he has no share and is continuing with the family

business from the shop on the ground flo or without

interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be

prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he

also has an implied license to live therein. Therefore, the

Tribunal appears to be justified in permitting him to

continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction

14

proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or

interferes with the life of others.

30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II provides for

maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It inter alia

provides a senior citizen or a parent who is unable to

maintain himself from his own earning or the property

owned by him shall be entitled to make an application

against his parent or grand parent or against one or more

of his children (not a minor) or where the senior citizen is

issueless against specified relatives to fulfil his needs to

enable him to lead a normal life. The Tribunal constituted

under the Act on such an application may provide for the

monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses and

in the event they fail to comply with the order, the Tribunal

may for breach of the order issue a warrant for levying fines

and may sentence such person to imprisonment for a term

which may extend to one month or until payment is made

whichever is earlier.

31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere

specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of

persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a

15

senior person. It is only on account of the observations

made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner,

Bengaluru Urban District & Ors

5 that the Tribunal

under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it

is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the

senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired

jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act

which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the

property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior

citizen.

32. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in

Urmila Dixit (supra). However, even in the aforesaid case

the court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal

‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory

to pass an order of eviction in every case. The Appellate

Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the

eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction

so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.

5

(2021) 15 SCC 730

16

33. In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not

justified in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason

that the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring

the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6

th

share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is

pending adjudication before the civil court.

34. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering

the eviction of Krishna Kumar from a portion of the house

rather the purpose could have been served by ordering

maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior

Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the

parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

35. In the light of the above situation, the High Court appears

to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction

order passed by the Tribunal and to maintain the other

conditions imposed by the Tribunal.

36. The judgment and order of the High Court dated

18.08.2023 is well considered, equitable and justified. It

17

has rightly set aside the appellate order passed by the

Tribunal.

37. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed.

.............……………………………….. J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL)

.............……………………………….. J.

(S.V.N. BHATTI)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 27, 2025