Chattan Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner Cum Presiding Officer and Others

Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Ad v ocate for the petitioner. Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, A ddl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Jasbir Singh Mahri, Adv o cate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Ad v ocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. ****

¶10

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶11

[1] Respective replies on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 have been filed in C ourt today. The same are tak e n on record. Copies thereof, have been sup p lied to learned counsel for the p etitioner.

¶12

[2] The instant matter, is yet a nother example where the fa m ily property dispute is sought to be settle d , by invocations of provisio n of Section 23 of the Maintenance & Welfar e of Parents & Senior Citizens A ct, 2007 (he r einafter referred to as ‘ the Act o f 2007 ’).

¶13

[3] Recently, the petitioner, w ho is a senior citizen filed an applicati o n before the Maintenance Tri b unal concerned, wherethrough, he sought c ancellation of transfer deed bearing Wasika No.4352 d a ted RAJNEESH SHARMA 09.01.20 1 7, and for restorations of lan d in its original form with th e 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

2

¶15

CWP-12664-2 0 23 (O&M)

¶16

petitione r . The application (supra) w as allowed by the Mainten a nce Tribunal t hrough order dated 24.03.202 2 . This verdict was not challen g ed by respo n dent Nos.3 & 4, but it onl y challenged by respondent N o .5Kamalpr e et Singh, by filing a statutory a p peal under Section 16 of the A c t of 2007. T h e said appeal was allowed, a s the learned Appellate Authority concerne d , has set aside the order pa s sed by the learned Mainten a nce Tribunal, and by drawing a verdict dated 25.05.2022, remanded the lis to the learned M aintenance Tribunal, to adju d icate the issue afresh. Post the remand o rder, the Maintenance Tribun a l decided the matter afresh, and thereupo n , though the prayer of the petit i oner with regard to cancellatio n of transfer d eed was rejected, however, lear n ed Maintenance Tribunal, cam e to a findin g that the petitioner is entitle for maintenance to the exten t of Rs.24,00 0 /- per month, which is to be p a id equally by all three respond e nts i.e. respo n dent Nos.3 to 5. The petitione r , while being dis-satisfied with the orders o f maintenance, as the petitione r only wanted the cancellatio n of transfer d eed, he preferred a statutory a p peal under Section 16 of the A ct (supra). H owever, he remained unsucce s sful in the same, as the appeal w as finally d i smissed vide order dated 29.03.2023. Both the orders d a ted 30.06.20 2 2, and 29.03.2023, are now p u t to challenge by filing the ins t ant petition u n der Article 227 of the Constitu t ion of India.

¶17

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner in an attempt to challenge the impugne d orders draws attention of thi s Court towards the content of the transfer d eed, which carries the specific c ondition that the transfer is sub j ect to the co n dition that the transferee shall p rovide basic amenities and ne e ds. RAJNEESH SHARMA2025.10.28 13:16 He furthe r submits that post the transfer, t he respondent stopped maintain i ng I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

3

¶19

CWP-12664-2 0 23 (O&M)

¶20

the petiti o ner, and therefore, he has no ot h er option but to invoke Sectio n 23 of the A c t of 2007. He also submits t hat it was a positive case of the petitione r before the learned Tribunal, through the applications that the responde n ts stopped looking after him , and he is unable to afford his medicine s , and unable to do his daily chores as per his own wish, and ha s no other sou r ce of income.

¶21

[5] He in addition submits tha t once there is a violation of the condition s of the transfer deed, the learn e d Tribunal is required to set a s ide the trans f er made, and there was no o ccasion for the learned Trib u nal concerne d to grant the maintenance whic h was never prayed for. [6] Learned counsel for respond e nt Nos.3 & 4, submit that the l a nd in questi o n is in possession of respon d ent No.5, therefore, they are not voluntari l y paying the maintenance as i m posed upon them by the lear n ed Tribunal. Rather they supported the ve r sion of the petitioner to the e ff ect that they are not paying any mainten an ce, and not serving food to the petitione r as neither they are in possessi o n of the property in question, nor they hav e derived any income from the s ame, therefore, they are unabl e to pay the m aintenance. The relevant ple a ding of respondent Nos.3 & 4 is accepted. Relevant extract of the same is as under:-

¶22

“That it is pertinent to mention here that the petiti o ner submitted that neither the private respondents are paying a ny maintenance and nor serv i ng him food, this fact is a lso admitted, because neither the answering respondent is in possession of the said prop e rty given by the petitioner no r he has any income from the sa m e, therefore, he is not liable to p ay any maintenance. ”

¶23

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

4

¶25

CWP-12664-2 0 23 (O&M)

¶26

[7] Learned counsel for respo n dent No.4, further submits t hat responde n t No.5, is living at Ambala, a n d he is not maintaining the se n ior citizen.

¶27

[8] Learned counsel for respon d ent No.5, opposed the submis s ion made by c ounsel for the petitioner, and r e spondent Nos.3 and 4. He sub m its that in fa c t, the instant application is file d on behest of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, as the y want to settle the property disp u te under the garb of senior citi z en. The inte n tion behind filing the applic a tion is to get the transfer d eed cancelled, and thereupon, they will get e x ecute afresh transfer deed in t h eir favour excluding respondent No.5. He also submits that till date, respon d ent Nos.3 & 4, have not paid the main t enance as fixed by the lear n ed Maintena n ce Tribunals.

¶28

[9] Learned counsel for respon d ent No.5, further submits that the mischief o f Section 23 cannot be invoke d merely to settle the inter se fa m ily property d ispute. He in addition submit s that respondent Nos.3 & 4 are not paying m aintenance to the petitioner wi th only intention to get the tran s fer deed in q uestion cancelled so that they c an achieve their desire object. He finally s u bmits that his intention to mai n tain his grand-father, can be v ery much se e n from his conduct, that he is continuously paying his par t of maintena n ce. He further draw attention of this Court towards invoice i.e. Annexur e R-1, to submit that he got cata r act surgery done of his both gr a ndparents, w hich reflects that he is not s h irking away his responsibilit y to maintain t hem and he still ready to maint a in them.

¶29

[10] Learned counsels for respo n dent Nos.3 & 4 submit that t h ey RAJNEESH SHARMA2025.10.28 13:16 have no o bjection in case, the land transf e rred in their favour is cancelled. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

5

¶31

CWP-12664-2 0 23 (O&M)

¶32

[11] This Court has examined the submissions made by the pa r ties concerne d .

¶33

[12] There is no dispute on the f a cts that there is a specific recit a l in the trans f er deed that transfer is subject t o the condition of maintaining the senior cit i zen. However, this Court need s to examine as to whether, the r e is any sub s tance in the application that respondent No.5, has failed in maintaini n g his grand-parents. In the ap plication, primarily, though t h ere are vagu e assertion to the effect that the respondents failed to look after the petitione r , but not even a single insta n ce has been pointed out in the applicati o n, as to how, and in which m anner, respondent No.5, who w as earlier m a intaining the grand-father, and h as now refused to maintain hi m .

¶34

[13] On the basis of this vague pl e ading, there is no attempt mad e by the petit i oner to substantiate, by bringi n g on record, any positive evidence to the ef fe ct that respondent No.5, used t o maintain the petitioner, and has now sto p ped maintaining. It is also i m perative to note the conduc t of responde n t Nos.3 & 4, they have filed reply, admitting the contents of the applicati o ns before the Maintenance Trib u nals. Even before this Court, t h ey have mai n tained a single stand to the ef fe ct that the transfer deed shoul d be cancelled, and they have even taken a s p ecific stand to the effect that t h ey do not w i sh to maintain their grand-fat h er, from whom they got the l a nd transferred. It is a clear case where the inter se family property disput e is sought to be settled through invocations of provisions of the Act of 2 0 07, which ca n not be the desire object of t h e Act. This practice needs to be deprecated.

¶35

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

6

¶37

CWP-12664-2 0 23 (O&M)

¶38

[14] In view of the above facts a nd circumstances, this Court d oes not find a ny substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitio n er, requiring interference of this Court, to c a ncel the transfer deed, execute d in favour o f Respondent no.5. However, since respondent Nos.3 & 4 has voluntari l y made a statement before this C ourt that they do not wish to k eep the trans f erred land, and therefore, on account of their statements m ade before th i s Court, the land which was tr a nsferred through Wasika No.4 3 52, on dated 0 9.01.2017, in favour of respon d ent Nos.3 & 4, is ordered to be set aside, an d their respective share in the land in dispute shall revert to the petitione r . However, the share of respo n dent No.5 is ordered to remai n as such, fur t hermore, respondent No.5 is a l so directed to continue to co m ply with the a ward, as awarded by the Mai n tenance Tribunal, and continu e to pay the m aintenance of Rs.8000/-, to the p etitioner, every month, as asse s sed by the lat t er concerned.

¶39

[15] This Court has also considered the fact, that the Welfare of the Senior Citizen is important, therefore, si n ce share of respondent Nos.3 & 4, is reverte d back to the petitioner, and re s pondent No.5 is already under the obligatio n to pay the maintenance, ther e fore, the Welfare of the petiti o ner (senior ci t izen), is well taken care of. [16] Disposed of , accordingly.

¶40

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

¶41

13.10.20 2 5

¶42

‘R. Sharma'

¶43

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶44

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.10.28 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chattan Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner Cum Presiding Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chattan Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner Cum Presiding Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Ram Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs the District Magistrate Cum Appellate Authority Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others

Surender Mehlawat Vs the Deputy Comissioner Cum Chairman, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal Rewari and Others

Charanjit Singh and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others

Rajvir Singh Alias Rajbir Vs Deputy Commissioner and Another