Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs Rohit Agrawal on 24 February, 2026
1 CR-153-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 153 of 2025
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Versus
ROHIT AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel-Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedures has been filed arising out of the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Civil Court whereby whereby the application of the present petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts, in brief, for the purpose of disposal of the present petition is that a suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 who is son of the present petitioner by impleading the present petitioner as defendant. In the said suit it is stated that there is a undivided Hindu Family comprising the plaintiff, his brother, the defendant being his father, and his mother. It is further averred in the suit that a plot of land purchased on 31-11- 2000 is owned by the Hindu Undivided Family and there are three properties in total, adjacent to each other. One property was purchased by the defendant, another by the mother of the plaintiff i.e. wife of the defendant and third property in the name of the HUF, that was purchased on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:07 2 CR-153-2025 31.11.2000. It was contended that the HUF property is measuring 1890 square feet and constructions have been made on the said plots. In the HUF plot, a hotel has been constructed which is being run by the plaintiff. Declaration was sought that the property as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint be declared as the Hindu Undivided Family property, having equal share of the plaintiff alongwith other HUF members, and consequential permanent injunction.
3. The present petitioner/defendant appeared in the case and filed a counterclaim seeking mandatory injunction to get the possession restored from the plaintiff. Apart from filing counterclaim and written statement, he also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on twin grounds. Firstly that in the lifetime of father, the son cannot sue for share and secondly, because the property is not an ancestral property but is the property owned by the defendant-father as it was purchased from the earnings of the father when the plaintiff was hardly 12 or 13 years old and was a minor. It was further contended that application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (S enior Citizen Act, for short), is pending before the SDO and as per section 23(2) read with Section 27 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred and hence, the suit is barred by law. It is the case of petitioner/defendant that subsequently the SDO being the competent authority under the said Act has passed an order dated 18.06.2024 in respect of the alleged HUF plots/property and restrained the plaintiff from certain portion of the property.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:073 CR-153-2025
4. The counsel for the rival parties had argued in support of their rival contentions to contend that the suit was maintainable or not. This court has heard counsel for the rival parties at length.
5. In the present case, so far as the suit being instituted in the lifetime of father is concerned, this court has gone through the sale deed dated 31.11.2000 of the property, which is alleged to be HUF property. The said sale deed has been executed by the defendant but the purchaser in the sale deed is shown to be the defendant as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family.
6. It is not the case of the father succeeding the property from his ancestors or the father having self-acquired property, where it can be argued by the father that in his lifetime the son cannot seek a share. However, in the present case, there is a sale deed signed by the father mentioning the purchaser as HUF and himself as Karta. Therefore, in such circumstances, it becomes a triable issue that whether the property is owned by the HUF or is owned by the father himself solely and not by the HUF. Therefore, though the plaintiff may be minor at the time of execution of sale deed, but since the sale deed itself is in favor of HUF, then at the stage of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it cannot be inferred that the property is owned by the father solely and not by the HUF. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court at this stage, it could not be inferred that the suit was not maintainable.
7. So far as other ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 23 & 27 of Senior Citizens Act is concerned, the relevant Sections 23 and 27 of Senior Citizens Act are as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:074 CR-153-2025 "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.
27. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act."
8. As per Section 23, the SDO gets the jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of property when the property has been given over by the senior citizen by way of gift or otherwise, subject to condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic needs to the transferer and thereafter the transferee refuses to provide such amenities and needs and in such circumstances, the SDO can hold the transfer to have been made by fraud or under undue influence. As per Section 23(2), if a senior citizen has a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:07 5 CR-153-2025 right to receive maintenance out of estate and such estate or part of the estate is transferred, the right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee, if the transferee has notice of such right. As per Section 27, no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which provisions of the Act of 2007 would apply.
9. The counsel for the petitioner had fairly conceded that Section 23(1) would not apply and he is seeking benefit of Section 23(2) readwith Section 27. As per Section 23 (2), the Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act has a power to enforce the right of maintenance and does not have the power to declare the title document to be void. Even otherwise, it is not the case where the property had been transferred by the senior citizen in his old age, but it is the case where the senior citizen had purchased the property as Karta Khandan in his young age. Therefore, senior citizen cannot now take any benefit of his age to oust other members of the family from the property.
10. So far as the right of the petitioner to receive maintenance out of the estate is concerned, it was not disputed by the parties that there are a number of properties of the family and none of the parties are residing in the property. The only right that the petitioner has been exercising in the proceedings under Senior Citizen Act in respect of the property is right of maintenance and even if he exercises right of maintenance, then the suit not being concerned with the right of maintenance in the property but being concerned title of the property, would remain maintainable. The petitioner could have argued about non-maintainability of the suit only if he had a case under Section 23(1) of Act of 2007, but once he has a case under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:07 6 CR-153-2025 23(2) of Act of 2007, there is no question of maintenance involved in the civil suit. Therefore, the civil suit for title would remain maintainable.
11. Consequently, finding no good reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial court, the present petition is dismissed .
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 26-02-2026 18:45:07