Charanjit Singh and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

CWP-27156-2 0 22

¶3

[208] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶4

CWP-27 1 56-2022 Date of D ecision : 13.10.2025

¶5

Charanjit Singh and another …Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur exerci s ing the pow e rs of Appellate Tribunal u n der Maintena n ce and Welfare of Parents and S enior Citizens A ct, 2007 and others ….Respondents

¶8

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advoc a te for the petitioners. Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, A ddl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate f o r respondent No.3. ****

¶9

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶10

[1] Respondent No.3, a senior c i tizen aged about 87 years, file d an applicati o n/representation before the lear n ed Maintenance Tribunal, pra y ing for canc e llation of the transfer deed e x ecuted by him in favour of the petitione r s and respondent No.4. The Maintenance Tribunal, instead of cancellin g the transfer deed, allowed th e application only to the exten t of directing payment of monthly maintena n ce of Rs.3,000/- by the petitio n ers and respondent No.4, vide order dated 10 . 06.2020 (Annexure P-4).

¶11

[2] Aggrieved by the said o r der of the learned Maintena n ce Tribunal, respondent No.3, preferred a s t atutory appeal under Section 1 6 of the Main t enance and Welfare of Parents a nd Senior Citizens Act, 2007. T he RAJNEESH SHARMA2025.11.10 16:25 said app e al was allowed, and the learned Appellate Authority, v ide I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

2

¶13

order d ated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P-6), set aside Vasika No.1352 a nd Vasika N o .1353 of the same date. The p e titioners, being beneficiaries of the aforesaid transfer deeds, have now assa i led the order dated 20.05.2022 by way of th e present petition. [3] Learned counsel for the pet i tioners draws the attention of t his Court to t he transfer deed (Annexure P-1 ) , and the sale deed (Annexure P -2) to submit that, Annexure P-2 is a sale de e d executed for a sale considera t ion of ₹6,00, 0 00/-, and therefore, the same c a nnot be made the subject-matte r of adjudicat i on before the learned Mainten a nce Tribunal. He further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P - 1, which is a transfer deed, a nd submits t hat the said deed does not c o ntain any condition requiring the transfere e to maintain the senior citizen , or to provide him with neces s ary amenities and needs.

¶14

[4] Learned counsel for the pet i tioners further draws the atten t ion of this C o urt to the application preferr e d by the senior citizen before the learned M aintenance Tribunal, to su b mit that the grounds on w h ich cancellation of the transfer deed w a s sought, on the allegation of conceal m ent and fraud, which does not f alls within the ambit of Sectio n 23 of the M a intenance and Welfare of Pare n ts and Senior Citizens Act, 200 7 . It is now c o ntended that if the senior citize n was of the belief that the tran s fer was obtained by fraud or misrepresentati o n, the appropriate course of ac t ion would ha v e been to avail other legal rem e dies, as available to him under the law.

¶15

[5] To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the petitio n ers has further drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds of appeal, wherein, t he senior citizen had pleaded t h at he never executed any sale deed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 in favou r of respondent Nos.2 and 3, n or any transfer deed in favou r of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

3

¶17

responde n t No.1. It was further alleg e d that the said documents w ere prepared f raudulently, and are the result o f fabrication. [6] Learned counsel for the peti t ioners in addition submits that the learned A ppellate Authority, committed a factual error in observing that the petitione r s were not paying the mainten a nce amount regularly, to whic h he draws th e attention of this Court toward s Annexure P-7, i.e. photocopie s of bank rec e ipts, evidencing deposit of th e maintenance amount in the bank account of the senior citizen. [7] On the other hand, learned c ounsel for respondent No.3–se n ior citizen, s u bmits that the petitioners have n ever paid the maintenance am o unt as fixed b y the learned Maintenance Trib u nal. It is, therefore, contended t hat the learn e d Appellate Authority has right l y passed the order of cancelling the transfer deed, as well as the sale deed in q uestion. He further submits that the senior cit i zen is presently residing in a G u rdwara, at the mercy of the pu b lic. It is also argued that the cancellation o f the transfer deed has been rig h tly ordered a nd warrants no interference b y this Court. Learned counse l in addition contends that the Act of 2 0 07, being a beneficial piece of legislatio n , ought to be interpreted in a manner that advances its object, namely, t h e welfare and protection of sen i or citizens. [8] This Court has heard both t h e parties in detail and has per u sed the entire record.

¶18

[9] Before this Court embarks u p on the rival submissions adva n ced by learn e d counsel for both parties, it would be appropriate to have a glimpse o f the contents of the applicatio n through which cancellation of the transfer d eed, and sale deed (Annexure s P-1 and P-2) has been sough t by invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfar e of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 Parents a nd Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The relevant portion of the s aid I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

4

¶20

applicati o n is extracted hereinafter:-

¶21

“ It is respectfully sub m itted that I Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh Caste, Jat S i kh Aged 75 Years is resident o f Village Bhullar Athwal, Te h sil Dera Baba Nanak, Distric t Gurdaspur presently reside n t of Darbar Sahib Dera Bab a Nanak. My wife Manjeet K aur has died long back. M y Nephew Charanjit Singh S/ o Chain Singh, Gurmieet Kau r W/o my nephew Parkash Si n gh and Supinder Kaur W/o m y deceased Nephew Manohar Singh all residents of Bhulla r Athwal Tehsil Dera Baba N anak in connivance each othe r got transferred my land whe r ein 15 Canal situated in Villag e Bhullar Athwal, Tehsil D era Bana Nanak, Distric t Gurdaspur in their name. T hey have turned my out of th e house. Presently, I am ser v ing in Gurudwara Sahib Der a Bana Nanak and is spendi n g my time there. None of m y aforesaid relatives are taki n g care of me. Despite I a m owner, I am wandering her e and there and is taking food a t Gurudwara Sahib. I do not have money for my treatment. It is requested before you t o get my land returned to me. I shall be highly thankful to y o u.”

¶22

[10] A perusal of the above a p plication clearly reflects that the transfer d eed, as well as the sale deed, w as sought to be cancelled on the ground t h at the same has been obtained b y fraud. It was never averred in the applicati o n that the transfer deed had bee n executed with a condition that the transfere e would maintain, and take car e of the senior citizen, or that after executio n of the deed, the transferee fa iled to fulfil such an obligat i on. Rather, t h e averments are confined sol e ly to the allegation that both the transfer deed, as well as the sale deed are the result of fraud. [11] Furthermore, in the grounds of appeal as well, the senior citizen maintain e d a similar stand, which is evi d ent from its perusal. The rele v ant

¶23

RAJNEESH SHARMA2025.11.10 16:25 extract th e reof is reproduced hereunder:I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

5

¶25

“2. That, respondent No.1 is real nephew of appellant Aji t Singh. Appellant has n o child. Respondent Charanji t Singh get transferr e d deed of land measuring 7 kanals 4 Marlas in h is favour alleged to have bee n executed by appellant in his favour, in fact appellan t did not executed tr a nsfer deed in favour o f respondent No.1. Sim i larly appellant did not execute d any sale deed in fa v our of respondent No.2 and 3. The prepared the for g ed and fabricated transferre d deeds and sale deeds in their favour with intention t o grab the property of a p pellant.”

¶26

[12] A collective reading of both the application, and the memoran d um of appeal, clearly reflects that the senior citizen so u ght cancellation of the transfer deed and sale deed on the premise that execu t ion is a resu l t of fraud and misrepresentati o n. This Court has no hesitatio n in holding t h at such grounds does not fall w ithin the ambit of the Mainten a nce and Wel f are of Parents and Senior Citi z ens Act, 2007. Consequently, the mischief o f Section 23 of the Act cannot b e invoked in the present case. [13] At this juncture, it is relevan t to have a glimpse upon Sectio n 23 of Maint e nance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2 0 07, which is e xtracted hereinafter:-

¶27

“ 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

¶28

(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of thi s Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his pro p erty, subject to the condition t hat the transferee shall pr o vide the basic amenities and b a sic physical needs to the transferor and such transf e ree refuses or fails to pr o vide such amenities and phys i cal needs, the said trans f er of property shall be deeme d to have been made by fr a ud or coercion or under undue

¶29

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

6

¶31

influence and shall a t the option of the transferor be declared void by the T ribunal.

¶32

(2) Where any seni o r citizen has a right to rec e ive maintenance out of a n estate and such estate or p art thereof is transferred , the right to receive maintenance may be enforced aga i nst the transferee if the transf e ree has notice of the right , or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the trans fe ree for consideration and wit h out notice of right.

¶33

(3) If, any senior citiz e n is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-secti o ns (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referre d to in Explanation to sub- s ection (1) of section 5.”

¶34

[14] The above extracted provisi o ns empowers the senior citize n to seek can c ellation of any transfer of pro p erty executed by them, either by way of g i ft deed, or otherwise; provide d that the transferee has underta k en the oblig a tion to provide basic amenities and maintenance to the se n ior citizen a n d such transferee failed to pro v ide the promised maintenance, in that eve n tuality, such transfer of prope r ty shall be deemed to have been made by f raud, coercion or undue influen c e.

¶35

[15] Sub-clause (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, creates a l e gal fiction a n d empowers the learned tribu n al concerned, to presume that the transfer is the result of fraud, coercio n or undue influence, in case, the transfer i s made subject to the condition t hat the transferee shall provide the basic am e nities and basic physical nee d s to the transferor, and post the executio n of the transfer deed, the transfe r ee fails to keep the promise.

¶36

[16] Two ingredients are essenti a l to be established by leading the cogent e v idence. First, that the transfer w as subject to the condition that the transfere e shall provide the basic am e nities and basic physical ne e ds;

¶37

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

7

¶39

second, p ost the transfer of execution o f the transfer deed, the transf e ree failed to p rovide the basic amenities and p hysical needs. [17] Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled ‘ Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another, Civil App e al No.174 of 2021, decided on 06.12.20 2 2, has held that, to attract the p rovisions of Section 23 of the A ct of 2007, t he condition of providing basic amenities and basic physical n e eds to transfe r or-senior citizen is sine qua n o n for its applicability. The rele v ant

¶40

paragrap h s are extracted hereunder:-

¶41

“ 13. When a senior ci t izen parts with his or her prop e rty by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favou r of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of loo k ing after the senior citize n is not necessarily attached t o it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in ret u rn. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-sec t ion (1) of Section 23 are attac h ed to a transfer, existe n ce of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 14. Careful perusal o f the petition under Section 23 fi led by respondent no.1 sh o ws that it is not even pleaded t hat the release deed was e xecuted subject to a condition t hat the transferees (the d a ughters of respondent no.1) w o uld provide the basic am e nities and basic physical need s to respondent no.1. Eve n in the impugned order dated 2 2^nd May 2018 passed by t he Maintenance Tribunal, no s u ch finding has been rec o rded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by t h e parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment o f the Tribunal, immediately aft e r a reply was filed by t h e appellant that the petition w as fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject t o a condition of providi n g the basic amenities and b a sic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is s ine qua non for applicabi l ity of sub-section (1) of Section 2 3.

¶42

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

8

¶44

In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by responde n t no.1 that the release deed w as executed subject to su c h a condition.”

¶45

[18] Similar observations were m ade by a Co-ordinate Bench of t his Court, in case titled ‘ Tilak Raj vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others’, CWP-41 4 -2025, decided on 13.01.2025, w herein, after considering the r a tio laid dow n in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (supra) , it was held that the condi t ion requiring the transferee to maintain the senior citizen by providing b a sic amenities and physical needs must not o nly be expressly stipulated in the transfer d eed, but must also be speci fi cally pleaded before the lear n ed Tribunal concerned, in order to establis h a breach thereof. It is only u p on fulfillme n t of these conditions that the r e lief under Section 23 of the Ac t of 2007, ca n be granted. The relevant obs e rvations of the Co-ordinate Be n ch are extra c ted hereinbelow:

¶46

“ 12. A bare perusal of the above paragraphs of the judgment in Sudesh Ch hikara (supra) makes it clear t hat not only the conditi o n that the senior citizen will be maintained by the tra n sferee qua his basic amenities a nd basic physical needs must be there in the docu m ent concerned but, the sa i d part needs to be pleaded be f ore the Tribunal also so a s to prove the violation of the s aid condition and it is o n ly under that circumstances, the relief can be granted. I n the absence of the condition t hat the transferee is liab l e to maintain the senior citize n in the deed sought to be r ecalled, the requirement of Sec t ion 23 of the 2007 Act ar e not fulfilled and the interpreta t ion being given by the pet i tioner to the paragraphs 13 an d 14 of the judgment cannot be accepted.

¶47

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

9

¶49

13. Even otherwise, o n being asked to read from the pleadings as to wh a t basic amenities and the b a sic physical needs were d emanded by the petitioner be f ore the Tribunal and how they were proved, learned cou n sel for the petitioner has n ot been able to show that any s u ch factual averment was made or any evidence was bro u ght on record with rega r d to any basic amenities or the physical needs of the p etitioner, not being fulfilled by the respondent. Hence, e v en if the interpretation being given by the petitioner is accepted for the sake of argum e nt, then also, the requir e ments of the judgment in Su d esh Chhikara (supra) a r e not fulfilled in the facts a nd circumstances of the p resent case.” [19] The legality of the herein a bove expressed observations w as tested by the aggrieved by filing LPA N o .1012 of 2025. However, the s a me were affi r med by the Division Bench of this Court, by drawing an o r der dated 09.05.2025. The relevant parag r aphs of this order are extra c ted hereunde r :-

¶50

“ 10. A perusal of t he said judgment indicates t hat transfer must be m a de subject to the condition t hat transferee shall pro v ide basic amenities and b a sic physical needs to th e transferor and only then if the transferee refuses or f ails to provide such amenitie s or physical needs to th e transferor Section 23 (1) of the 2007 Act can be bro u ght into motion. Only if both the conditions are satisfi e d by a legal fiction, then tran s fer shall be deemed to h a ve been made by way of frau d or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer t h en becomes voidable at the instance of transferor and the Maintenance Tribun a l would have the jurisdiction to declare the transfer v o id. 11. It was further o b served in Sudesh Chhikara's c ase (supra) that when a p e tition under Section 23 of the 2 0 07 Act does not reveal th a t the deed was executed subject to

¶51

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

10

¶53

the obligation of ma i ntenance stipulated under Sec t ion 23 of the 2007 Act an d no such finding is recorded by the Maintenance Tribuna l or no oral evidence is adduce d by the parties, then the o rder of the Tribunal could no t be held to be maintainab l e.”

¶54

[20] The learned Appellat e Authority, has failed to take i nto consider a tion, the evidence regarding, w h ether, the petitioner was regul a rly paying the maintenance as directed by t h e learned Maintenance Tribuna l or not. A pe r usal of Annexure P-7, which a r e the bank receipts, evidencing the deposit o f maintenance amounts, clearly d emonstrates that the petitioner w as making r egular payments. Conseque n tly, the finding of the lear n ed Appellat e Authority in this regard is fact u ally incorrect. [21] In view of the above, this C ourt is of the considered view t hat the learn e d Appellate Authority, has n o t properly examined the rele v ant aspects, a nd committed an illegality w hile passing the impugned o r der (supra) . T he impugned order (supra) , does not withstand the test of lega l ity, and therefore, warrants interference of t h is Court. Consequently, the o r der dated 20. 0 5.2022 is hereby set aside .

¶55

[22] The next issue for consider a tion before this Court, is whet h er, post-execution of the transfer deed, the s enior citizen is receiving adeq u ate maintena n ce or not. Section 23(2) of the A ct of 2007, recognizes the rig h t of a senior c itizen to receive maintenance o u t of an estate belonging to the m . It is not in d ispute that through the transfer deed in question, the senior citizen transferred 7 kanals 4 marlas of land in f a vour of petitioner No.1. In vie w of this, the m aintenance previously fixed b y the Maintenance Tribunal is fo u nd to be in a dequate. Accordingly, the sa m e is enhanced to Rs.6,000/- p e r