13.10.2025 Charanjit S anjit Singh and another v. Deputy Com the power ty Commissioner, Gurdaspur exercisin powers of Appellate Tribunal und ercising
Case Details
1 CWP-27156-202 2022 [208] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 27156-2022 CWP-2715 Date of De of Decision : 13.10.2025 Charanjit S anjit Singh and another …Petitioners versus Deputy Com the power ty Commissioner, Gurdaspur exercisin powers of Appellate Tribunal und ercising l under Maintenanc tenance and Welfare of Parents and Se and Senior Citizens Ac ens Act, 2007 and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate vocate for the petitioners. Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Ad a, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate for for respondent No.3. **** KULDEEP DEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) [1] Respondent No.3, a senior citi ior citizen aged about 87 years, filed a filed an application cation/representation before the learne learned Maintenance Tribunal, prayin praying for cancell ancellation of the transfer deed exe ed executed by him in favour of th of the petitioners ioners and respondent No.4. The M he Maintenance Tribunal, instead o tead of cancelling elling the transfer deed, allowed the d the application only to the extent o xtent of directing p ting payment of monthly maintenance enance of Rs.3,000/- by the petitione titioners and respond espondent No.4, vide order dated 10.0 .06.2020 (Annexure P-4). [2] Aggrieved by the said orde d order of the learned Maintenanc tenance Tribunal, re nal, respondent No.3, preferred a stat a statutory appeal under Section 16 o n 16 of the Mainten aintenance and Welfare of Parents an ents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Th 07. The RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document said appeal appeal was allowed, and the lear learned Appellate Authority, vid vide 2 order da dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P- -6), set aside Vasika No.1352 an 352 and Vasika No. ka No.1353 of the same date. The peti he petitioners, being beneficiaries of th s of the aforesaid tr said transfer deeds, have now assaile assailed the order dated 20.05.2022 b 2022 by way of the of the present petition. [3] Learned counsel for the petiti petitioners draws the attention of th of this Court to the t to the transfer deed (Annexure P-1) 1), and the sale deed (Annexure P ure P-2) to submit th bmit that, Annexure P-2 is a sale deed e deed executed for a sale consideratio deration of ₹6,00,00 ,00,000/-, and therefore, the same can e cannot be made the subject-matter o atter of adjudicatio ication before the learned Maintenanc tenance Tribunal. He further draws th raws the attention o tion of this Court to Annexure P- -1, which is a transfer deed, an ed, and submits tha its that the said deed does not con ot contain any condition requiring th ring the transferee t feree to maintain the senior citizen, , or to provide him with necessar ecessary amenities a ities and needs. [4] Learned counsel for the petiti petitioners further draws the attentio ttention of this Cou is Court to the application preferred ferred by the senior citizen before th fore the learned M Maintenance Tribunal, to subm submit that the grounds on whic which cancellation ellation of the transfer deed was was sought, on the allegation o tion of concealmen ealment and fraud, which does not fal not falls within the ambit of Section 2 ction 23 of the Main e Maintenance and Welfare of Parents ents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 2007. It is now con contended that if the senior citizen itizen was of the belief that the transf transfer was obtaine obtained by fraud or misrepresentation ntation, the appropriate course of actio f action would have d have been to avail other legal remed remedies, as available to him under th nder the law. [5] To fortify his submissions, le ons, learned counsel for the petitione titioners has further further drawn the attention of this C this Court to the grounds of appea appeal, wherein, th the senior citizen had pleaded tha ed that he never executed any sale dee ale deed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in favour o vour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, no 3, nor any transfer deed in favour o vour of 3 respondent ndent No.1. It was further alleged lleged that the said documents we ts were prepared fr ared fraudulently, and are the result of ult of fabrication. [6]
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitio petitioners in addition submits that th that the learned Ap Appellate Authority, committed a f tted a factual error in observing that th that the petitioners ioners were not paying the maintenan ntenance amount regularly, to which h hich he draws the s the attention of this Court towards ards Annexure P-7, i.e. photocopies o opies of bank receip receipts, evidencing deposit of the m f the maintenance amount in the ban he bank account of unt of the senior citizen. [7] On the other hand, learned co ed counsel for respondent No.3–senio senior citizen, sub submits that the petitioners have ne ave never paid the maintenance amou amount as fixed by ed by the learned Maintenance Tribun Tribunal. It is, therefore, contended th ded that the learned arned Appellate Authority has rightly ightly passed the order of cancelling th lling the transfer dee fer deed, as well as the sale deed in qu in question. He further submits that th that the senior citiz r citizen is presently residing in a Gur a Gurdwara, at the mercy of the publi public. It is also also argued that the cancellation of t n of the transfer deed has been right rightly ordered an red and warrants no interference by ce by this Court. Learned counsel unsel in addition ion contends that the Act of 200 f 2007, being a beneficial piece of legislation, lation, ought to be interpreted in a m in a manner that advances its objec object, namely, the ly, the welfare and protection of senio f senior citizens. [8] This Court has heard both the th the parties in detail and has peruse perused the entire re ntire record. [9] Before this Court embarks upo upon the rival submissions advance dvanced by learned earned counsel for both parties, it w s, it would be appropriate to have have a glimpse of pse of the contents of the application t ation through which cancellation of th n of the transfer dee fer deed, and sale deed (Annexures P ures P-1 and P-2) has been sought b ught by invoking th king the provisions of Section 23 of 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare o lfare of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Parents and nts and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. T 007. The relevant portion of the sa the said application cation is extracted hereinafter:- 4 “ It is respectfully submi Sh. bmitted that I Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh Caste, Jat Sik t of t Sikh Aged 75 Years is resident of Village Bhullar Athwal, Tehs rict Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur presently resident ba ent of Darbar Sahib Dera Baba Nanak. My wife Manjeet Ka My t Kaur has died long back. My Nephew Charanjit Singh S/o aur S/o Chain Singh, Gurmieet Kaur W/o my nephew Parkash Sing my Singh and Supinder Kaur W/o my deceased Nephew Manohar S lar ar Singh all residents of Bhullar Athwal Tehsil Dera Baba Na her Nanak in connivance each other got transferred my land where ge herein 15 Canal situated in Village Bhullar Athwal, Tehsil D rict l Dera Bana Nanak, District Gurdaspur in their name. Th the . They have turned my out of the house. Presently, I am servi era erving in Gurudwara Sahib Dera Bana Nanak and is spending my ding my time there. None of my aforesaid relatives are taking am aking care of me. Despite I am owner, I am wandering here at ere and there and is taking food at Gurudwara Sahib. I do not nt. not have money for my treatment. It is requested before you to g . I to get my land returned to me. I shall be highly thankful to you you.” [10] A perusal of the above app e application clearly reflects that th that the transfer dee fer deed, as well as the sale deed, w was sought to be cancelled on th on the ground that nd that the same has been obtained by ed by fraud. It was never averred in th d in the application cation that the transfer deed had been been executed with a condition that th that the transferee w feree would maintain, and take care o care of the senior citizen, or that aft hat after execution o ution of the deed, the transferee fai ee failed to fulfil such an obligatio ligation. Rather, the er, the averments are confined solely solely to the allegation that both th oth the transfer dee fer deed, as well as the sale deed are th are the result of fraud. [11] Furthermore, in the grounds of nds of appeal as well, the senior citize r citizen maintained tained a similar stand, which is evide evident from its perusal. The releva relevant RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document extract ther ct thereof is reproduced hereunder:- 5 “2. That, respondent No.1 is jit o.1 is real nephew of appellant Ajit Singh. Appellant has no njit s no child. Respondent Charanjit Singh get transferred 7 rred deed of land measuring 7 kanals 4 Marlas in his een his favour alleged to have been executed by appellant i ant nt in his favour, in fact appellant did not executed tran of transfer deed in favour of respondent No.1. Simila ted imilarly appellant did not executed any sale deed in favo 3. favour of respondent No.2 and 3. The prepared the forge red forged and fabricated transferred deeds and sale deeds i to ds in their favour with intention to grab the property of app f appellant.” [12] A collective reading of b of both nd the application, and the th memorandu orandum of appeal, clearly reflects eflects that the senior citizen soug sought cancellation ellation of the transfer deed and sale d ale deed on the premise that executio xecution is a result result of fraud and misrepresentation. tation. This Court has no hesitation ation in holding tha ing that such grounds does not fall wit all within the ambit of the Maintenanc tenance and Welfar Welfare of Parents and Senior Citize Citizens Act, 2007. Consequently, th tly, the mischief of hief of Section 23 of the Act cannot be not be invoked in the present case. [13] At this juncture, it is relevant t evant to have a glimpse upon Section 2 ction 23 of Mainten aintenance and Welfare of Parents arents and Senior Citizens Act, 200 t, 2007, which is ex h is extracted hereinafter:- “23. Transfer of pro property to be void in certai ertain circumstances. (1) Where any senior citizen who, after sen the th commencement of this A his Act, has transferred by way of g of gift or otherwise, his prope roperty, subject to the condition th n that the transferee shall prov provide the basic amenities and bas basic physical needs to the the transferor and such transfere sferee refuses or fails to prov provide such amenities and physic ysical RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have been made by frau fraud or coercion or under undue needs, the said transfer nsfer of property shall be deemed ed to 6 influence and shall at at the option of the transferor b or be declared void by the Tri e Tribunal. (2) Where any senior nior citizen has a right to receiv eceive maintenance out of an f an estate and such estate or pa r part thereof is transferred, ed, the right to receive maintenanc nance may be enforced again gainst the transferee if the transfere sferee has notice of the right, o ht, or if the transfer is gratuitous; b s; but not against the transfer nsferee for consideration and witho ithout notice of right. (3) If, any senior citizen tizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-section ctions (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by a by any of the organisation referred t red to in Explanation to sub-se section (1) of section 5.” [14] The above extracted provision visions empowers the senior citizen itizen to seek cance cancellation of any transfer of prope property executed by them, either b ither by way of gift of gift deed, or otherwise; provided t ided that the transferee has undertake ertaken the obligat bligation to provide basic amenities enities and maintenance to the senio e senior citizen and n and such transferee failed to provi provide the promised maintenance, ance, in that eventu eventuality, such transfer of property roperty shall be deemed to have bee ve been made by fra luence. by fraud, coercion or undue influence [15] Sub-clause (1) of Section 23 o n 23 of the Act of 2007, creates a leg s a legal fiction and n and empowers the learned tribuna ribunal concerned, to presume that th that the transfer is is the result of fraud, coercion o rcion or undue influence, in case, th ase, the transfer is m fer is made subject to the condition th tion that the transferee shall provide th vide the basic amen amenities and basic physical needs needs to the transferor, and post th post the execution o ution of the transfer deed, the transfere nsferee fails to keep the promise. [16] Two ingredients are essential ential to be established by leading th ding the cogent evid nt evidence. First, that the transfer wa fer was subject to the condition that th that the transferee feree shall provide the basic amen amenities and basic physical need needs; RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 second, po nd, post the transfer of execution of on of the transfer deed, the transfere ansferee failed to pro d to provide the basic amenities and ph and physical needs. [17] Hon’ble Supreme Court, in c t, in case titled ‘Sudesh Chhikara v ra vs. Ramti Dev Devi and another, Civil Appeal Appeal No.174 of 2021, decided o ided on 06.12.2022 .2022, has held that, to attract the pro the provisions of Section 23 of the A the Act of 2007, th 07, the condition of providing basic a asic amenities and basic physical need al needs to transfero nsferor-senior citizen is sine qua non non for its applicability. The releva relevant paragraph raphs are extracted hereunder:- “13. When a senior citiz citizen parts with his or her proper operty by executing a gift or a or a release or otherwise in favour our of his or her near and d d dear ones, a condition of lookin oking after the senior citizen izen is not necessarily attached to to it. On the contrary, very o ry often, such transfers are made o de out of love and affection w on without any expectation in retur eturn. Therefore, when it it is alleged i that the condition itions mentioned in sub-sectio ection (1) of Section 23 are attache tached to a transfer, existenc stence of such conditions must b st be established before the T he Tribunal. 14. Careful perusal of t l of the petition under Section 23 file filed by respondent no.1 show shows that it is not even pleaded th d that the release deed was ex s executed subject to a condition th n that the transferees (the dau daughters of respondent no.1) wou would provide the basic amen menities and basic physical needs respondent no.1. Even n in the impugned order dated 22 eds to d 22nd May 2018 passed by th y the Maintenance Tribunal, no suc o such finding has been recor ecorded. It seems that oral evidenc idence was not adduced by the y the parties. As can be seen from th m the impugned judgment of t of the Tribunal, immediately after fter a reply was filed by the the appellant that the petition wa n was fixed for arguments. ts. Effecting transfer subject to to a condition of providing ding the basic amenities and bas basic RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document qua non for applicabilit bility of sub-section (1) of Section 23 on 23. physical needs to the t he transferor – senior citizen is sin is sine 8 In the present case, a se, as stated earlier, it is not eve t even pleaded by respondent dent no.1 that the release deed wa d was executed subject to such such a condition.” [18] Similar observations were mad re made by a Co-ordinate Bench of th h of this Court, in c t, in case titled ‘Tilak Raj vs. State o ate of U.T. Chandigarh and others thers’, CWP-414 414-2025, decided on 13.01.2025, w wherein, after considering the rat the ratio laid down i own in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (sup (supra), it was held that the conditio ondition requiring th iring the transferee to maintain the s the senior citizen by providing bas g basic amenities a ities and physical needs must not on not only be expressly stipulated in th d in the transfer de fer deed, but must also be specific pecifically pleaded before the learne learned Tribunal co nal concerned, in order to establish blish a breach thereof. It is only upo ly upon fulfillment lment of these conditions that the reli he relief under Section 23 of the Act o e Act of 2007, can b , can be granted. The relevant observ observations of the Co-ordinate Benc e Bench are extracte xtracted hereinbelow: “12. A bare perusal o sal of the above paragraphs of th of the judgment in Sudesh Chh Chhikara (supra) makes it clear th r that not only the condition ition that the senior citizen will b ill be maintained by the trans ransferee qua his basic amenities an es and basic physical needs ds must be there in the docume ument concerned but, the said said part needs to be pleaded befo before the Tribunal also so as o as to prove the violation of the sa e said condition and it is onl only under that circumstances, th s, the relief can be granted. In d. In the absence of the condition th n that the transferee is liable able to maintain the senior citizen zen in the deed sought to be re e recalled, the requirement of Sectio ection 23 of the 2007 Act are n are not fulfilled and the interpretatio tation being given by the petiti etitioner to the paragraphs 13 and 1 nd 14 of the judgment cannot b not be accepted. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 13. Even otherwise, on e, on being asked to read from th m the pleadings as to what hat basic amenities and the bas basic physical needs were de e demanded by the petitioner befo before the Tribunal and how th ow they were proved, learned couns ounsel for the petitioner has no s not been able to show that any suc y such factual averment was m as made or any evidence was broug rought on record with regard gard to any basic amenities or th or the physical needs of the pe e petitioner, not being fulfilled by th by the respondent. Hence, even even if the interpretation being give given by the petitioner is acc s accepted for the sake of argumen ument, then also, the requirem irements of the judgment in Sudes udesh Chhikara (supra) are are not fulfilled in the facts an s and circumstances of the pre e present case.” [19] The legality of the hereinab reinabove expressed observations wa ns was tested by th d by the aggrieved by filing LPA No.1 A No.1012 of 2025. However, the sam he same were affirm affirmed by the Division Bench of ch of this Court, by drawing an ord n order dated 09.0 09.05.2025. The relevant paragrap aragraphs of this order are extracte xtracted hereunder: nder:- “10. A perusal of th f the said judgment indicates th s that transfer must be mad made subject to the condition th n that transferee shall provi rovide basic amenities and bas basic physical needs to the the transferor and only then if th if the transferee refuses or fa or fails to provide such amenities o ties or physical needs to the the transferor Section 23 (1) of th of the 2007 Act can be broug rought into motion. Only if both th th the conditions are satisfied sfied by a legal fiction, then transf ansfer shall be deemed to hav have been made by way of fraud o ud or coercion or undue in e influence. Such a transfer the then becomes voidable at th at the instance of transferor and th nd the Maintenance Tribunal nal would have the jurisdiction ion to declare the transfer void void. 11. It was further obse observed in Sudesh Chhikara's ca s case (supra) that when a peti petition under Section 23 of the 200 2007 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Act does not reveal that ect to that the deed was executed subject to 10 the obligation of main aintenance stipulated under Sectio ection 23 of the 2007 Act and n and no such finding is recorded by th by the Maintenance Tribunal o nal or no oral evidence is adduced b ced by the parties, then the or e order of the Tribunal could not b not be held to be maintainable able.” [20] The learned Appellate A ellate Authority, has failed to take in ake into consideratio ideration, the evidence regarding, whe whether, the petitioner was regular egularly paying the g the maintenance as directed by the by the learned Maintenance Tribunal al or not. A peru A perusal of Annexure P-7, which are are the bank receipts, evidencing th cing the deposit of m sit of maintenance amounts, clearly de arly demonstrates that the petitioner wa ner was making re ng regular payments. Consequently quently, the finding of the learne learned Appellate A llate Authority in this regard is factual factually incorrect. [21]
Decision
In view of the above, this Cou is Court is of the considered view th iew that the learned earned Appellate Authority, has not as not properly examined the releva relevant aspects, an and committed an illegality wh ty while passing the impugned ord d order (supra). Th The impugned order (supra), does does not withstand the test of legalit legality, and therefo therefore, warrants interference of thi of this Court. Consequently, the ord e order dated 20.05 20.05.2022 is hereby set aside. [22] The next issue for considerati ideration before this Court, is whethe hether, post-execut execution of the transfer deed, the se the senior citizen is receiving adequa dequate maintenanc tenance or not. Section 23(2) of the A the Act of 2007, recognizes the right o right of a senior cit ior citizen to receive maintenance out ce out of an estate belonging to them. them. It is not in dis t in dispute that through the transfer d sfer deed in question, the senior citize r citizen transferred ferred 7 kanals 4 marlas of land in fav in favour of petitioner No.1. In view o view of this, the ma the maintenance previously fixed by th d by the Maintenance Tribunal is foun is found to be inad inadequate. Accordingly, the same per same is enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 month, pay h, payable solely by petitioner No.1, No.1, who is the beneficiary under th nder the transfer dee fer deed. [23] Disposed of, accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE .2025 13.10.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document