Dismissed

Chattar Singh and Anr. v. Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2026CWP/20872/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizens challenged concurrent orders dismissing their application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act seeking restoration of possession of a first floor from their son and daughter-in-law. The Court held the dispute involved questions of title and civil rights requiring adjudication by a civil court, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioners left free to seek appropriate remedies before the competent civil forum for their civil and proprietary rights.

Chattar Singh and Anr. Vs Appellate Tribunal… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

CWP-20872-2026

-1-

104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-20872-2026 Date of decision: July 13, 2026

¶6

CHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 AND OTHERS

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The instant petition has been filed for seeking quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, vide which application of the petitioners under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder was dismissed, as also the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.10.2025, has also been dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, aged about 77 and 73 years respectively, are senior citizens and are the parents of respondent No.3 and parents-in-law of respondent No.4. It is ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this order/judgment contended that after respondent No.3 purchased a plot for construction of a

¶17

CWP-20872-2026 -2-

¶18

diagnostic centre along with residential accommodation, an understanding was arrived at between the parties that if the petitioners contributed towards the construction and supervised the work, the first floor of the building would be earmarked for their exclusive residence. It was thereupon that the petitioners contributed approximately 30 lakhs towards the construction,₹ and thereafter started residing on the first floor. However, they were subsequently subjected to harassment and forcibly dispossessed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an application under the Act, seeking restoration of possession and protection of their residential rights. However, the application was wrongly dismissed by the Maintenance Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2025, and the appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 24.03.2026, without due appreciation of the facts. It is contended that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and non-application of mind, inasmuch as the authorities concerned failed to appreciate the beneficial object of the Act and wrongly treated the matter as a simple property dispute. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere.

¶20

Though the Act of 2007 is a beneficial legislation intended to secure maintenance, welfare and protection of senior citizens, however, it must also be ensured that jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Act is not extended beyond the scope of the statute, to adjudicate disputed questions of title, ownership or competing proprietary rights.

¶21

In the present case, it is the concurrent finding of the authorities

¶22

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 concerned that the petitioners have failed to produce any material to I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶23

CWP-20872-2026 -3-

¶24

establish ownership over the property or to show that the same had ever been transferred by them to respondent Nos.3 or 4 through any instrument attracting Section 23 of the Act. On the contrary, the record shows that the property was purchased by respondent No.3 through a registered conveyance deed dated 09.08.2018 and was subsequently transferred in favour of his wife and daughters by a registered transfer deed dated 08.10.2025.

¶25

Further, the Appellate Authority has also recorded findings, based on the material available on record, that the petitioners are not without means of maintenance, and that the dispute essentially arises out of inter se family differences concerning the property. It has further been noticed that respondent No.4 does not fall within the definition of "children" under Section 2 of the Act. These findings have not been shown to be perverse, arbitrary or unsupported by the record. Moreover, the petitioners' assertion that they contributed towards construction and were assured residence on the first floor raises disputed questions of civil rights which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Act, and necessarily require adjudication by the competent civil court.

¶26

It is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact unless they suffer from patent illegality, jurisdictional error or manifest perversity. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case.

¶27

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies before the competent civil forum for adjudication of their civil and proprietary rights, if so present.

¶28

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶29

CWP-20872-2026 -4- 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

(KIRTI SINGH) July 13, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Chattar Singh and Anr. v. Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chattar Singh and Anr. v. Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salvinder Singh Chahal Vs the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act Adsj and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bablu Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, Punjab and Others

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Ors.

Ms Chief Engineer Dams Water Resources Department Punjab Vs Commissioner Employees Compensation Gurdaspur and Others