( 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 2026:BHC-AUG:38782 ( 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