Presiding Officer, Ma unal, er, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal v. Mohali, Dis ali, District Mohali and others
Case Details
CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 1 [209] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CWP-1266 Date of De 12664-2023 (O&M) of Decision : 13.10.2025 Chattan Sin tan Singh …Petitioner The Deputy iding Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Ma unal, er, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, versus Mohali, Dis ali, District Mohali and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advo Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Ad Mr. Jasbir Singh Mahri, Advoc Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advoc Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. a, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Advocate for respondent No.3. Advocate for respondent No.4. llar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. **** KULDEEP DEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) [1] Respective replies on behalf of half of respondent Nos.3 to 5 have bee ve been filed in Co in Court today. The same are taken taken on record. Copies thereof, hav have been suppli supplied to learned counsel for the pet the petitioner. [2] The instant matter, is yet an another example where the fami family property di erty dispute is sought to be settled ettled, by invocations of provision o ision of Section 23 on 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare elfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Ac ens Act, 2007 (herei (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2 t of 2007’). [3] Recently, the petitioner, w er, who is a senior citizen filed a filed an application cation before the Maintenance Tribu Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, , he sought can ht cancellation of transfer deed b eed bearing Wasika No.4352 date 2 dated 09.01.2017 .2017, and for restorations of land the land in its original form with the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 2 petitioner. ioner. The application (supra) wa was allowed by the Maintenanc tenance Tribunal th nal through order dated 24.03.2022. 2022. This verdict was not challenge allenged by respond espondent Nos.3 & 4, but it only c
Facts
t No.5- only challenged by respondent No.5 Kamalpreet alpreet Singh, by filing a statutory app ppeal under Section 16 of the Act o e Act of 2007. The The said appeal was allowed, as as the learned Appellate Authori uthority concerned, erned, has set aside the order pass r passed by the learned Maintenanc tenance Tribunal, and by drawing a verdict dated 25 ated 25.05.2022, remanded the lis to th to the learned Ma Maintenance Tribunal, to adjudic adjudicate the issue afresh. Post th ost the remand ord nd order, the Maintenance Tribunal ibunal decided the matter afresh, an and thereupon upon, though the prayer of the petitio petitioner with regard to cancellation o lation of transfer dee fer deed was rejected, however, learne learned Maintenance Tribunal, came came to a finding t ding that the petitioner is entitle fo title for maintenance to the extent xtent of Rs.24,000/ 4,000/- per month, which is to be paid be paid equally by all three responden ondents i.e. respond espondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner ioner, while being dis-satisfied with with the orders of m rs of maintenance, as the petitioner tioner only wanted the cancellation o ation of transfer dee fer deed, he preferred a statutory app ry appeal under Section 16 of the A the Act (supra). Ho a). However, he remained unsuccessf ccessful in the same, as the appeal wa eal was finally dism ly dismissed vide order dated 29.03 29.03.2023. Both the orders date s dated 30.06.2022 .2022, and 29.03.2023, are now put w put to challenge by filing the insta instant petition und ion under Article 227 of the Constitutio stitution of India. [4]
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute on the fact he facts that there is a specific recital ecital in the transfer ransfer deed that transfer is subject to ject to the condition of maintaining th ning the senior citiz r citizen. However, this Court needs s to examine as to whether, there there is any substa substance in the application that that respondent No.5, has failed ailed in maintaining taining his grand-parents. In the app he application, primarily, though the gh there are vague a ague assertion to the effect that the re the respondents failed to look after th after the petitioner ioner, but not even a single instanc instance has been pointed out in th t in the application cation, as to how, and in which man ch manner, respondent No.5, who wa was earlier main maintaining the grand-father, and ha has now refused to maintain him him. [13] On the basis of this vague plea e pleading, there is no attempt made b made by the petitio petitioner to substantiate, by bringing inging on record, any positive evidenc vidence to the effec e effect that respondent No.5, used to sed to maintain the petitioner, and and has now stoppe stopped maintaining. It is also im imperative to note the conduct o duct of respondent ndent Nos.3 & 4, they have filed rep led reply, admitting the contents of th s of the application cations before the Maintenance Tribun Tribunals. Even before this Court, the urt, they have maint maintained a single stand to the effec e effect that the transfer deed should b ould be cancelled, , and they have even taken a spe n a specific stand to the effect that the hat they do not wis wish to maintain their grand-father father, from whom they got the lan the land transferred. ferred. It is a clear case where the the inter se family property dispute ispute is sought to b ht to be settled through invocations o tions of provisions of the Act of 200 f 2007, which cann h cannot be the desire object of the of the Act. This practice needs to b s to be ecated. deprecated. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 6 [14] In view of the above facts an cts and circumstances, this Court doe urt does not find any ind any substance in the submissions m sions made by counsel for the petitione titioner, requiring in iring interference of this Court, to can to cancel the transfer deed, executed cuted in favour of ur of Respondent no.5. However, s ver, since respondent Nos.3 & 4 4 has voluntarily ntarily made a statement before this Co this Court that they do not wish to kee keep the transfe ransferred land, and therefore, on ac on account of their statements mad ts made before this re this Court, the land which was tran as transferred through Wasika No.435 o.4352, on dated 09 ated 09.01.2017, in favour of responde pondent Nos.3 & 4, is ordered to be s to be set aside, and and their respective share in the la the land in dispute shall revert to th t to the petitioner ioner. However, the share of respond espondent No.5 is ordered to remain a main as such, furth , furthermore, respondent No.5 is also is also directed to continue to comp comply with the aw the award, as awarded by the Mainte Maintenance Tribunal, and continue tinue to pay the mai he maintenance of Rs.8000/-, to the pe the petitioner, every month, as assesse assessed by the latte latter concerned. [15] This Court has also considered sidered the fact, that the Welfare of th re of the Senior Citiz or Citizen is important, therefore, sinc since share of respondent Nos.3 & s.3 & 4, is reverted verted back to the petitioner, and resp d respondent No.5 is already under nder the obligation ation to pay the maintenance, therefo therefore, the Welfare of the petition etitioner (senior citiz or citizen), is well taken care of. [16] Disposed of, accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE .2025 13.10.2025 ‘R. Sharma' RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner in an attempt to challenge th enge the impugned gned orders draws attention of this C this Court towards the content of th t of the transfer dee fer deed, which carries the specific co ific condition that the transfer is subje subject to the cond e condition that the transferee shall pr hall provide basic amenities and need d needs. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document He further s rther submits that post the transfer, the fer, the respondent stopped maintainin taining CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 3 the petition etitioner, and therefore, he has no othe o other option but to invoke Section 2 ction 23 of the Act e Act of 2007. He also submits th its that it was a positive case of th e of the petitioner b ioner before the learned Tribunal, through the applications that th that the respondents ndents stopped looking after him, him, and he is unable to afford h ford his medicines cines, and unable to do his daily chore chores as per his own wish, and has n d has no other sourc source of income. [5] He in addition submits that that once there is a violation of th of the conditions itions of the transfer deed, the learned learned Tribunal is required to set asid et aside the transfe ransfer made, and there was no oc occasion for the learned Tribun Tribunal concerned erned to grant the maintenance which w hich was never prayed for. [6] Learned counsel for responden pondent Nos.3 & 4, submit that the lan the land in question estion is in possession of responde pondent No.5, therefore, they are n are not voluntarily ntarily paying the maintenance as im as imposed upon them by the learne learned Tribunal. nal. Rather they supported the versi ersion of the petitioner to the effe e effect that they a they are not paying any maintenanc tenance, and not serving food to th to the petitioner a ioner as neither they are in possession session of the property in question, nor they have have derived any income from the sa the same, therefore, they are unable e to pay the ma the maintenance. The relevant plead t pleading of respondent Nos.3 & 4 & 4 is accepted. R ted. Relevant extract of the same is a e is as under:- “That it is pertinent to m to mention here that the petition itioner submitted that neither the pri private respondents are paying an g any maintenance and nor servin rving him food, this fact is al s also admitted, because neither t er the answering respondent is is in possession of the said proper operty given by the petitioner nor h nor he has any income from the same ame, therefore, he is not liable to pa to pay any maintenance. ” RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 4 [7] Learned counsel for respond espondent No.4, further submits th its that respondent ndent No.5, is living at Ambala, and and he is not maintaining the seni e senior citizen. [8] Learned counsel for responde pondent No.5, opposed the submissio mission made by co by counsel for the petitioner, and resp nd respondent Nos.3 and 4. He submi submits that in fact, in fact, the instant application is filed o filed on behest of Respondent Nos.3 Nos.3 & 4, as they w they want to settle the property disput dispute under the garb of senior citize citizen. The intent intention behind filing the applicat plication is to get the transfer dee er deed cancelled, , and thereupon, they will get exe get execute afresh transfer deed in the in their favour excl ur excluding respondent No.5. He also also submits that till date, responde pondent Nos.3 & 3 & 4, have not paid the mainte aintenance as fixed by the learne learned Maintenanc tenance Tribunals. [9] Learned counsel for responde pondent No.5, further submits that th that the mischief of hief of Section 23 cannot be invoked oked merely to settle the inter se fami family property di erty dispute. He in addition submits t mits that respondent Nos.3 & 4 are n are not paying mai maintenance to the petitioner with with only intention to get the transf transfer deed in que in question cancelled so that they can ey can achieve their desire object. H ect. He finally subm submits that his intention to maint maintain his grand-father, can be ver be very much seen seen from his conduct, that he is he is continuously paying his part o part of maintenanc tenance. He further draw attention o ntion of this Court towards invoice i. oice i.e. Annexure R xure R-1, to submit that he got catarac h grand- cataract surgery done of his both grand parents, wh which reflects that he is not shi shirking away his responsibility bility to maintain th tain them and he still ready to maintain aintain them. [10] Learned counsels for respond espondent Nos.3 & 4 submit that the hat they RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have no obj no objection in case, the land transferr lled. ansferred in their favour is cancelled. CWP-12664-202 2023 (O&M) 5 [11] concerned erned. [12] This Court has examined the d the submissions made by the partie parties