JUDGMENT : S.MANIKUMAR, J. Instant writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 03.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.20234 of 2019. Appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.20234 of 2019 and stated to be near relatives/legal heirs of late Mariyamma John, who was the appellant in Appeal No.M5-6487/2015 before the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the instant writ appeal are as follows: Late Mariyamma John had filed a petition before the 2nd respondent/Maintenance Tribunal, under Section 23 of the Act, for setting aside a Gift Deed No.3326/2012 to 3331/2012 of Thengana Sub Registrar Office that was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent. The Maintenance Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order, against which late Mariayamma John preferred Ext.P2 appeal, which also came to be dismissed by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, Mariayamma John filed W.P. (C)No.6520/2018, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Appellate Authority and, during the pendency of the said writ petition, Mariayamma John died. This Court, directed impleadment of the legal heirs of Mariyamma John and thereafter, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed reconsideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. 3. The appellate authority, based on the directions of this Court, proceeded to consider the appeal and passed Ext.P7 order. 4. Challenging Ext.P7 order and Ext.P9 order of the Maintenance Tribunal that gives effect to Ext.P7 order appellants have filed W.P.(C)No.20234/2019. Writ court by judgment dated 3.2.2020 dismissed the writ petition. Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable before this Court. It has to be noticed that the right that was pursued by Mariyamma John was one that accrued to her in terms of the 2007 Act. Further, under the said Act, against any order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal it is only the senior citizen who has a statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is not in dispute that Mariyamma John had pursued that right of appeal, and still thereafter, preferred a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority before this Court. It is not in dispute that Mariyamma John had pursued that right of appeal, and still thereafter, preferred a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, however, Mariayamma John died and thereafter, this Court permitted a substitution of the legal heirs of Mariyamma John in the writ petition, and also remanded the matter before the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. In my view, with the expiry of Mariyamma John, the writ petition stood abated and this Court ought not to have impleaded the legal heirs in the writ petition. This is because, in the said writ petition, Mariayamma John was espousing her right under the 2007 Act, which right was one that accrued to her in her personal capacity as a senior citizen and not a heritable right under common law. The Appellate Authority too could not have considered the appeal that was being pursued by the legal heirs since it would tantamount to an adjudication of their proprietary rights by a forum other than a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is trite that when a senior citizen dies during the pendency of an appeal under the Act, the appeal itself abates, since the right that is pursued in the appeal is a statutory right that accrues to the senior citizen alone and is not a heritable right. Accordingly, I am of the view that the writ petition impugning the order of the appellate authority under the Act cannot be pursued by the legal heirs of the deceased senior citizen. If there is a dispute with regard to their rights over the items of property that were in the ownership of the deceased senior citizen, then it is for the legal heirs to agitate their respective rights in respect of the property before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, leaving open the rights of the petitioners, as also respondents 3, 4 and 5, to agitate their respective rights over the properties in question before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the writ petition impugning Exts.P7 and P9 orders, is dismissed.” 5. Thus, leaving open the rights of the petitioners, as also respondents 3, 4 and 5, to agitate their respective rights over the properties in question before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the writ petition impugning Exts.P7 and P9 orders, is dismissed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of the learned Single Judge, instant writ appeal is filed contending, inter alia, that further proceedings pending before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act cannot be stopped for the reason that the senior citizen is no more. Moreover, Section 5(1)(b) of the Act provides for filing of the application on behalf of the senior citizen by any other person or organization authorized by him in the event of any incapacity of senior citizen. It is also contended that as per Section 27 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred and legal heirs cannot approach the civil court in respect of the estate of a senior citizen. Further contention raised is that no specific reasons are stated for ignoring the statement given by Mariyamma John on 3.2.2017 and the deposition given by her on 3.2.2017 before the Appellate Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, legal heirs or relatives or even an association is entitled to continue the proceedings in an appeal after the death of the senior citizen. There cannot be an abatement of the appeal on the death of the appellant/senior citizen. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The predominant question which emerges for consideration is whether after the death of a senior citizen, the Tribunal constituted as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 can continue proceeding pending before it? To understand, let us see the scheme of the Act – The Act is constituted to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and the welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 8. Section 2(d) defines 'parents' to mean 'father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step-father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen. 8. Section 2(d) defines 'parents' to mean 'father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step-father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen. A 'senior citizen' is defined to mean any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above. 9. Section 4 deals with 'the maintenance of parents and senior citizens', which stipulates that a senior citizen, including parent, who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5 in case of – (i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor; (ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of Section 2. 10. Application for maintenance is dealt with under Section 5 of the Act, which states that an application for maintenance under Section 4 may be made-- (a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or (b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organisation authorised by him; or (c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suomotu. 11. Section 9 deals with 'order for maintenance', which states that (1) if children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct. 12. The provisions discussed above would make it clear that the persons entitled to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 2007 are only parents and senior citizens. 12. The provisions discussed above would make it clear that the persons entitled to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 2007 are only parents and senior citizens. Eventhough the appellants have raised a contention that they are entitled to continue the proceedings before the Tribunal after the death of a parent, in view of the provision contained under Section 5 of the Act, the same cannot be accepted because the said provision says that only in the event of a senior citizen or a parent unable to make an application, an application under Section 4 of the Act may be made by any other person or organisation. 13. Here is a case where the mother died during the pendency of the earlier round of writ petition before this Court. However, without taking into consideration, the provisions of Act, 2007, the legal heirs were impleaded in the writ proceedings and thereafter, remanded the matter for consideration by the appellate authority constituted under Section 16 of Act, 2007. The proceedings that were finalised by the appellate Tribunal were not maintainable at all. Moreover, Section 16 of Act, 2007 enables only a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal, within sixty days from the date of the order, to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the legal heirs are not entitled to pursue any appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Taking into account all the above aspects, we are of the considered view that the conclusions arrived at by the learned single Judge that Smt. Mariyamma John was espousing her right under the Act, 2007, which was a right accrued to her in her personal capacity as a senior citizen and not a heritable right under common law does not require any interference at all. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the appellate authority could not have considered the appeal pursued by the legal heirs, since it would tantamount to an adjudication of their proprietary rights by a forum other than a civil court of competent jurisdiction. To put it otherwise, continuance of the proceedings before the Tribunal itself was erroneous after the death of Smt. Mariyamma John. 15. To put it otherwise, continuance of the proceedings before the Tribunal itself was erroneous after the death of Smt. Mariyamma John. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of power of judicial review by the learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.