As per case facts, Surender and Tirath Mehlawat (petitioners) challenged orders canceling property transfer deeds executed by their grandfather (respondent no.3). The grandfather initially sought cancellation alleging neglect, then withdrew ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -1-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101
CWP-3641-2024(O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.09.2025
SURENDER MEHLAWAT
-PETITIONER
V/S
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN,
MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REWARI AND
OTHERS
-RESPONDENTS
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
TIRATH MEHLAWAT
-PETITIONER
V/S
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN,
MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REWARI AND
OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul, Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocates,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma,Advocate
Mr. Yash Yadav, Advocate,
for the respondents no. 3.
Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate,
for respondent no.4.
Mr. Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate,
for respondent no.5.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -2-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Both these petitions are amenable to be decided together as a
common order passed in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2007'), has been put to challenge.
For the sake of brevity the facts of the case have been culled out from the
CWP-3641-2024.
2. Through the instant petitions filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated
29.09.2023 (Annexure P-20) passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal,
Bawal, District Rewari (respondent no.2), wherethrough the
release/transfer deed bearing No.1430 and 1431 dated 21.08.2018
(Annexures P1 and P-2 respectively), were declared null and void, under
an ex parte proceeding initiated under the provisions of Section 23 of the
Act of 2007. The petitioners further seeks quashing of the order dated
23.01.2024 (Annexure P-29) passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal,
Rewari (respondent no.1), wherethrough, the appeals preferred by them
under the provisions of Section 16(1) of the ibid Act, were also dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In order to understand the dispute amongst the parties, first, it
is essential to have a glance upon the family pedigree, which is as
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -3-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
under:-
Medh Singh
Phool Kumar (son)
died in 1998
Sangeeta (died in 1990)
Ist wife of Phool Kumar
Santosh (alive)
2
nd
wife of Phool Kumar
Prisha (daughter) Amandeep (son) Surender (son) Tirath (son)
4. In the instant case, Medh Singh (respondent no.3), who is a
grandfather of both the petitioners, filed an application dated 29.04.2019
under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, seeking
cancellation of transfer deeds bearing Vasika No.1430 and 1431, both
dated 21.08.2018, executed in favour of the petitioners. The said
application was filed on the ground that, subsequent to the execution of
the said deeds, the petitioners stopped taking care of respondent no.3, who
is a senior citizen. It was also alleged that the petitioners failed to take
respondent no.3 to the hospital, when his health deteriorated, and
eventually stopped looking after him during his ailment. Not only that, the
petitioners hurled abuses upon respondent no.3, and also insulted him
before the society. Respondent no.3, further asserted that the transfer
deeds in question were executed by him in favour of the petitioners on an
assurance to provide all basic amenities and physical needs during his
life- time, however, the petitioners failed to fulfil such assurances. The
aforesaid application was, subsequently, withdrawn on dated 26.10.2022
(Annexure P-7), as the matter was amicably settled between the
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -4-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
petitioners and respondent no.3, respondent no.4, and performa
respondent no.6, upon an assurance to provide their better services to the
senior citizen (respondent no.3). However, respondent no.3 again filed a
second application on 31.05.2023 before the learned Maintenance
Tribunal concerned, on the similar grounds, wherein, the petitioners were
proceeded against ex parte, and thereupon, the learned Tribunal, vide
order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-20), accepted the said application
and declared the above referred two release/transfer deeds, as null and
void. The petitioners fetching grievance from the said order, preferred a
statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the learned
Maintenance Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide order dated
23.01.2024 (Annexure P-29). Learned Appellate Maintenance Tribunal
concerned, had specifically observed that Amandeep, (herein respondent
no.4), had specifically recorded his statement on 29.09.2023, before the
learned Maintenance Tribunal wherein, he expressed his inability to offer
his services to his grandfather Medh Singh (present respondent no.3).
Further, it was categorically, observed that the present petitioners are
residing separately, from their grandfather (respondent no.3), in Gurgaon,
therefore, he is not being maintained properly, and upheld the order
passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned.
Hence, both the above orders are under challenge before this
Court.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -5-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners while
opening his arguments draws attention of this Court towards the contents
of the release/transfer deeds (supra), to submit that there is no specific
condition recited therein, for providing basic necessities and basic
physical needs to their grandfather who is a senior citizen (respondent
no.3).
6. He, by filing a brief synopsis gave details of the properties,
which devolved upon petitioners, and respondent no.4, upon demise of
their father Phool Kumar, at different points of time. The details are
extracted hereinafter:-
List of several immoval properties transferred by Medh Singh till date (1)
Amandeep Mehlawat, (2) Surender Mehlawat and (3) Tirath Mehlawat
Sr.No. Details In favour of Date Vasika
Nos.
1 A. 127K-3M, situated
at Village Bawal,
Tehsil Rewari in
question.
B. 163 K-0.534 M
situated at Village
Asra Ka Majra, Tehsil
Rewari in question
1/3 rd share in both
(1) Surender Mehlawat,
(2) Tirath Mehlawat,
and
(3) Amandeep
Mehlawat
21.08.2018 1430 &
1431
2. 40K Village Asra Ka
Majra, Tehsil Rewari
Entirely in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
24.01.2019 2790
3. 23K-2M of land at
Village Saban, Tehsil
Bawal, District Rewari
Entirely in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
24.01.2019 2791
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -6-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
4. Phool Kumar's
business of
opeeration/running of
18 buses and taken
over by Medh Singh
after demise of Phool
Kumar, as legal
guardian of Surender
Mehlawat and Tirath
Mehlawat
Entire business
transferred to
Amandeep Mehlawat
24.01.2019
5. Residential H.No.230,
Sector 6 (Part-1),
HSVP, Dharuhera,
District Rewari, 650
sq. Yards (two
storeyed)
Entirely in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
11.11.2020 1272
6. Cash and jewelry Entirely in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
2020
7. Two Bighas of land
situated in Guggal
Kota, Tehsil Nimrana,
District Alwar
(Rajasthan)
Entirely in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
21.11.2022 20220312
0104246
8. Shop No.61, New
Grain Market, Rewari
measuring 277.77
sq.yards
Entirely in favour of
Prisha (sister of
Amandeep Mehlawat)
21.06.2024 1816
Separation of shares of transferred lands of Medh Singh at Sr. No.1(A) inter se
between Amandeep Mehlawat on the one hand and Surender, Tirath Mehlawat
on the other, by effecting partition in the following manner. Consequently,
Amandeep Mehlawat became owner of ½ and Surender, Tirath Mehlawat
became owner of ½ of 127K-3M, situated at Bawal, Tehsil and District Rewari:-
127K-3M sitauted at
Bawal
50K-9M transferred by
Amandeep Mehlawat in
favour of Surender
Mehlawat and Tirath
Mehlawat
28.12.2022 2542
39K-17M transfer by
Surender, Tirath
Mehlawat in favour of
Amandeep Mehlawat
2543
List of several immoval properties succeeded on the demises of Phool Kumar till
date (1) Amandeep Mehlawat, (2) Surender Mehlawat and (3) Tirath Mehlawat
Sr. No. Details In favour of Date Mutation
Nos.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -7-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
1. ½ share in 34K-7M
sitauted in village Asra
K Majra, Tehsil
Bawal, District Rewari
1/5 share each in favour
of (1) Amandeep, (2)
Surender, (3) Tirath, (4)
Prisha (5) Santosh
08.05.2006 522
2. 23.1 K in village
Saban Tehsil Bawal,
District Rewari
1/5 share each in favour
of (1) Amandeep, (2)
Surender, (3) Tirath, (4)
Prisha (5) Santosh
15.06.2006 885
3. 6.25 Bigha situated in
Guggal Kota,
Rajasthan
1/4 share each in favour
of (1) Amandeep, (2)
Surender, (3) Tirath, (4)
Prisha
14.07.2006 947
4. 124.5 K in village
Asra Ka Majra, Tehsil
Bawal District Rewari
1/5 share each in favour
of (1) Amandeep, (2)
Surender, (3) Tirath, (4)
Prisha (5) Santosh
08.05.2006 522
5. 1/5 share each of
Prisha and Santosh in
124.5Ksituated village
Asra Ka Majra, Tehsil
Bawal District Rewari
Relinquished in favour
of (1) Amandeep (2)
Surender (3) Tirath
26.06.2006 523
6. 1/5 share each of
Prisha and Santosh in
34K-7M situated
village Asra Ka Majra,
Tehsil Bawal District
Rewari
Relinquished in favour
of (1) Amandeep (2)
Surender (3) Tirath
26.06.2006 523
7. 1/5 share each of
Prisha and Santosh in
23.1 K situated village
Asra Sabban, Tehsil
Bawal District Rewari
Relinquished in favour
of (1) Amandeep (2)
Surender (3) Tirath
26.06.2006 889
8. 1/4 share each of
Prisha and Santosh in
6.25 Bigha situated in
Guggal Kota,
Rajasthan.
Still exists intheir
names
Inter se transfers between (1) Amandeep Mehlawat on the one hand and (2)
Surender, Tirath Mehlawat on the other, by gift deeds/transfer deeds (in blood
relation) to settle the family properties to bring peace and harmony in the
family.
Sr. No. Details In favour of Date Vasika
Nos.
1. Plot No.229,
measuring 818 sq.yard
In favour of Amandeep
by Surender and Tirath
Mehlawat
28.10.2020 1111
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -8-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
Transfer by (1) Amandeep Mehlawat (2) Surender Mehlawat (3) Tirath
Mehlawat in favour of Smt. Santosh, mother of Surender Mehlawat and Tirath
Mehlawat
Sr. No. Details Date Vasika No.
1. Plot No.211,
measuring 502 sq.yard
situated in Sector-3,
Rewari.
17.02.2020 8478
7. The above details have been referred by learned senior
counsel for the petitioners to submit that the above applications have,
infact, been instituted by respondent no.3-Medh Singh, at the behest of
respondent no.4-Amandeep, who is also having 1/3
rd
share in the
release/transfer deeds in questions.
8. He also submits that the grandfather of the petitioners i.e.
respondent no.3, is residing with respondent no.4, and he being of an age
of 94 years, is unable to take any rational decision himself. Further,
respondent no.4, in fact, is trying to settle the family property dispute,
under the garb of respondent no.3.
9. He, in addition, submits that, immediately upon, the order
passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, was upheld by the
learned Appellate Tribunal concerned, and the petitioners preferred writ
petitions before this Court to thrown challenge to the said order, the lands
which are subject matter of the release/transfer deeds in question, were
got transferred by respondent no.4 on dated 09.02.2023, in favour of his
own sister-Prisha Lamba, who has been arrayed as respondent no.5. He,
while giving strength to his submissions, submits that it was only
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -9-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
respondent no.4, who is behind the initiation of proceedings under Section
23 of the Act of 2007, before the learned Maintenance Tribunal
concerned.
10. He, to a greater extent, submits that one of the basic reasons
for preferring the second application before the learned Maintenance
Tribunal concerned, by respondent no.3, seeking declaration of
release/transfer deeds in question, as null and void, was that the
petitioners were bent upon to sell all the properties which devolved upon
them through transfer deeds. However, this cannot be a ground for
invoking the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.
11. He, over and above, submitted that, except for the bald
allegation that the petitioners are not maintaining their grandfather
(respondent no. 3), there is neither any specific instance, nor any evidence
has been mentioned in the application to substantiate the said claim. No
particular act, or omission has been cited to show, as to how the senior
citizen (respondent no.3), was allegedly not maintained by the petitioners,
especially when he was residing with respondent no. 4, even at the time of
execution of the release/transfer deeds in question.
12. He, while arguing his case, further submits that the
petitioners are still ready and willing to extend all possible assistance to
their grandfather (respondent no.3), and are also ready to pay such
maintenance amount, as this Court may deem fit and proper to determine.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -10-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
13. He, while drawing attention of this Court towards the
proceedings before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, submits
that initiation of ex parte proceedings against the present petitioners
suffers from illegality, as it was only respondent no.4, who adopted clever
tactics, so as to ensure that the petitioners be proceeded against as ex
parte.
14. He now draws attention of this Court towards the caveat
petition, as filed by respondent no.3, which is annexed as Annexure P-30,
wherein, the mobile number mentioned against the applicant Medh Singh
in the memo of parties, is, in fact, that of Amandeep i.e. respondent no.4,
and submits that the entire litigation is being contested by Medh Singh, at
the behest of his grandson (respondent no.4), in order to get maximum
benefit out of the property in question.
15. He also apprises this Court, that after the transfer of the lands
under release/transfer deeds (Annexure P-1 and P-2) by the respondent
no.3 in favour of his grandsons i.e. petitioners and respondent no.4, the
respondent no.3, further executed three other release deeds (Annexures P-
8 to P-10) of different properties in favour of his grandson-respondent
no.4 alone. When respondent no.3 challenged the release deeds
(Annexures P-1 and P-2) on the ground of non-provision of basic
amenities and physical needs by the petitioners to respondent no. 3, it is
pertinent to note that no challenge was ever raised in respect of any other
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -11-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
properties belonging to or transferred to respondent no.4, either in the first
application (Annexure P-6), or in the second application (Annexure P-5),
filed before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned. The selective
challenge to the lands covered under release deeds (Annexures P-1 and P-
2) by respondent no.3 clearly indicates a strategic omission, and reflects
malice towards the petitioners, and it appears to be a deliberate attempt to
shield respondent no.4’s own acquisitions from scrutiny, while targeting
only the shares of the both the petitioners in the said release/transfer
deeds, evidently with the active involvement of respondent no. 4.
16. He, also assits this court by submitting that the pleas of
defence in para nos.9, 10 and 11 of the written statement filed by the
respondent no.3, with regard to accumulation of money and disposing of
the alleged properties existing in the name of both the petitioners at
throwaway prices without any care or caution and without considering the
purpose behind transferring them, and other transactions of loans etc.
speaks for themselves. Such transfers, or other transactions between the
parties are beyond the scope of consideration under section 23 of Act of
2007.
17. He, also, raised objection regarding the maintainability of
second application, as was preferred by respondent no.3 before the
learned Maintenance Tribunal, as it is barred by the doctrine of res
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -12-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
judicata.
18. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while
concluding his arguments, submits that the expression 'subject to' as
expressed in Sec. 23 of Act of 2007 as per Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, at page No.1278, means “subservient, inferior, obedient to;
governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.” In
Collins; English Dictionary, words 'subject to' means as “under the
condition that: we accept, subject to her agreement.
19. He, while giving strength to his arguments, has placed
reliance upon K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty and Sons and Co. vs. State
of Madras, submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has explained that
the use of the words 'subject to' has reference to effectuating the intention
of law, meaning “conditional upon.”
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3
20. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.3-Medh
Singh, puts fierce defence to submit that the properties in question were
transferred by respondent no.3, to his grandsons-petitioners out of his love
and affection, and subject to the conditions that they shall provide all
basic needs and amenities to him. However, the petitioners grossly
neglected to do the same, and ill treated their grandfather-respondent no.3.
In such circumstances, respondent no.3, was constrained to file an
application before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned seeking
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -13-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
cancellation of the release/transfer deeds in favour of both the petitioners,
however, the same was withdrawn by him on dated 26.10.2020, on an
assurance given by the petitioners and respondent no.4 that they shall not
alienate any parcel of the transferred land, and shall provide better
care/services to him.
21. He also submits that the withdrawal of the first application
was conditional in nature, whereby, the respondent no.3 had liberty to file
a fresh application for the same cause of action, as well as subsequent
causes.
22. He further submits that as regard declaration of the
petitioners as ex-parte by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, is
concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners were playing hide and seek
with the learned Tribunal, as they were having full knowledge about the
pendency of the proceedings. They were duly served through 'WhatsApp'
communication number, which is a valid service as per law laid down by
a co-ordinate bench of this Court in COCP No.959 of 2023, vide
judgement dated 26.05.2023. Even in the present Writ Petition, the
petitioners themseleves admit in para 9 that they were served on
28.09.2023 at 11:28 AM. Therefore, despite valid service of summons
upon the petitioners, they intentionally and deliberately did not appear
before the learned Maintenance Tribunal on 29.09.2023. Therefore, they
were rightly proceeded against ex-parte in compliance of Section 9 of
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -14-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
The Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules-2009.
Even the learned Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, has considered this
aspect, and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners intentionally did
not appear before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Bawal, despite
having knowledge about the pending litigation, and they were rightly
proceeded against ex-parte.
23. He, in addition, submits that the learned Maintenance
Tribunal concerned, while cancelling the release/transfer deeds, duly
considered the ingredients and ambit of Section 23 of Act of 2007. It is
also submitted that the learned Tribunal, took into account the factors
contemplated under Section 4(3) of the said Act, including the age,
physical and mental health, background, and economic status of the senior
citizen, as well as that of the children or relatives from whom relief was
sought, before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order having
withstood the legal parameters, calls for no interference by this Court.
24. It was further argued on behalf of respondent no.3 that the
bank loan which was raised by the petitioners for setting up their own
business, was repaid by respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, and
subsequent thereto, a closure certificate was issued by the bank on
10.07.2019.
25. He, over and above, submits that both the petitioners have
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -15-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
sole intention of accumulating money by selling the properties in
question, by hook or crook at the earliest, which they had received from
their grandfather- respondent no.3. The said properties are being disposed
of by the petitioners, at throwaway prices, carelessly and casually, without
even thinking at all about the purpose behind transfer of such properties
by respondent no.3, in order to avoid the reversion of the transferred
properties, to respondent no.3, in the event of non-fulfilment of
assurances.
26. He, to a greater extent submits, before this Court that after
the interim orders passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order
dated 20.02.2024, respondent no.3 tried to cultivate his land, however, the
petitioners in an illegal manner restrained him from doing so. Resultantly,
respondent no.3, had to file a complaint before the SHO concerned on
dated 15.05.2024, for expelling the petitioners from the land in question
and permitting him to cultivate the said land.
27. While referring to a complaint dated 03.07.2024, as filed by
the petitioners before the SHO, P.S. Pawal, regarding commission of
offences of criminal intimidation against their grandfather-respondent
no.3, learned senior counsel submits that such conduct shows the love and
affection of the petitioners towards their grandfather, and this clearly
establishes that the petitioners do not have any intention to maintain their
grandfather (respondent no.3).
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -16-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
28. By giving the details of the following mentioned properties,
learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 argues before this Court that
ever since the year 2014, the petitioners have been hell bent upon selling
all the properties which respondent no.3, had either gifted them, or bought
in their name with his own hard earned money.
“i.
SCO No. 239, Sector 5, Rewari for Rs. 47,11,000/- (Refer
Annexure R-3/3 @Pg.444)
ii. 33 Kanals 19 marlas land situated in Village Sulkha, for an
amount of Rs. 1,31,55,625/-:- (Refer Annexure R-3/4 @Pg.449)
iii. Plot No. 211 measuring 420 Sq. Meters Sector 3, Part I,
Rewari for an amount of Rs,. 1,25,50,000/-:- (Refer Annexure R-
3/5 @Pg.456)
iv. Agreement to sell dated 01.03.2023 for 95 Kanal 7 Marla
(subject matter of present CWP) for Rs.21.55 crores approx.:-
(Refer Annexure R-3/6 @Pg.464)
v. 17 Kanals 9 marlas land in village Bawal, District Rewari for an
amount of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-: (Refer Annexure R-3/7 (@Pg.468)
vi. Agreement dated 23.12.2023 for of 24 kanals land in village
Salan, Rewari, for Rs. 3,25,00,000/-: (Refer Annexure R-3/3
(@Pg.476)”
29. Much emphasis is laid upon the release/transfer deeds to
submit that the petitioners are indulging in disposing of the properties
which were the hard earned asset of respondent no.3.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.4.
30. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the
petitioners have been given sufficient land by their grandfather
(respondent no.3) out of his love and affection, in addition to the land
which was transferred through release/transfer deeds in question.
31. He further submits that the petitioners in order to conceal
their own misdeeds and misconduct which necessitated the filing of
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -17-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 by their grandfather-
respondent no.3, have erroneously and illegally attempted to shift the
entire blame upon respondent no.4. It is further contended that the entire
allegations levelled against respondent no.4 are baseless, false and
incorrect. He has also referred to the details of various property
transactions made in favour of the petitioners by respondent no. 3 to
substantiate his submissions.
32. He also submits that respondent no.4 has supported the case
of his grandfather (respondent no.3), while asserting that he never
objected to his grandfather's intention to reclaim the properties which
were transferred by him, out of his love and affection, to the petitioners.
It is further contended that the properties in question solely belongs to
respondent no.3, having been acquired from his own hard earned money,
and it is his sole discretion, to deal with the same, the manner or way he
likes.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5 .
33. Learned counsel for respondent no.5, also vociferously
opposed the submissions, as made on behalf of the petitioners. It is
submitted that the after the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal
concerned vide order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-29), respondent no.3
executed a transfer deed dated 09.02.2024 qua parcel of land in favour of
respondent no.5.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -18-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
34. He further submits that at the time when there was no
ongoing litigation between the parties, respondent no.3, being the absolute
owner of the property, out of his own will and volition had transferred the
property measuring 163 kanal 5.34 marla, situated in the revenue estate of
Asra Ka Majra, in favour of respondent no.5, and as such she has become
the absolute owner of the same, and a vested right in the said property was
created in her favour. The transfer deed executed in favour of respondent
no.5, cannot be put to challenge by filing the instant writ petitions, which
can only be assailed by taking recourse of filing an independent civil suit.
35. He finally, submits that no petition is maintainable against as
private individual, especially, who was not even a party before the learned
tribunal concerned.
ANALYSIS
36. This Court has examined the impugned orders as well as the
rival submissions as made by all the parties concerned.
37. Before testing the legality of the impugned orders, lets have a
glimpse upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which is
extracted hereinafter:-
“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances.
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -19-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition
that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the transferor and such
transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall
be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or
under undue influence and shall at the option of the
transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part
thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance
may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee
has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous;
but not against the transferee for consideration and
without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the
rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be
taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred
to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.”
38. The above extracted provisions empowers the senior citizen
to seek cancellation of any transfer of property executed by them, either
by way of gift deed, or otherwise; provided that the transferee has
undertaken the obligation to provide basic amenities and maintenance to
the senior citizen and such transferee failed to provide the promised
maintenance, in that eventuality, such transfer of property shall be deemed
to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -20-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
39. Sub-clause (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, creates a
legal fiction and empowers the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned,
to presume that the transfer is the result of fraud, coercion or undue
influence, in case, the transfer is made subject to the condition that the
transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to
the transferor, and post the execution of the transfer deed, the transferee
fails to keep the promise.
40. Two ingredients are essential to be established by leading the
cogent evidence; first, that the transfer was subject to the condition that
the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and fulfill all basic
physical needs; second, that post the transfer of execution of the transfer
deed, the transferee failed to provide the basic amenities and physical
needs.
41. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled ‘Sudesh Chhikara vs.
Ramti Devi and another, Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, decided on
06.12.2022, has held that, to attract the provisions of Section 23 of the
Act of 2007, the condition of providing basic amenities and basic physical
needs to transferor-senior citizen is sine qua non for its applicability. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her
property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise
in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition
of looking after the senior citizen is not
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -21-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often,
such transfers are made out of love and affection
without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is
alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section
(1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence
of such conditions must be established before the
Tribunal.
14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23
filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even
pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a
condition that the transferees (the daughters of
respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities
and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in
the impugned order dated 22
nd
May 2018 passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been
recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced
by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply
was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed
for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition
of providing the basic amenities and basic physical
needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non
for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the
present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by
respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed
subject to such a condition.”
42. Similar observations were made by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, in case titled ‘Tilak Raj vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -22-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
others’, CWP-414-2025, decided on 13.01.2025, wherein, after
considering the ratio laid down in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (supra), it was
held that the condition requiring the transferee to maintain the senior
citizen by providing basic amenities and physical needs must not only be
expressly stipulated in the transfer deed, but must also be specifically
pleaded before the learned Tribunal concerned, in order to establish a
breach thereof. It is only upon fulfillment of these conditions that the
relief under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, can be granted. The relevant
observations of the Co-ordinate Bench are extracted hereinbelow:
“12. A bare perusal of the above paragraphs of the
judgment in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) makes it clear that
not only the condition that the senior citizen will be
maintained by the transferee qua his basic amenities and
basic physical needs must be there in the document
concerned but, the said part needs to be pleaded before the
Tribunal also so as to prove the violation of the said
condition and it is only under that circumstances, the relief
can be granted. In the absence of the condition that the
transferee is liable to maintain the senior citizen in the
deed sought to be recalled, the requirement of Section 23 of
the 2007 Act are not fulfilled and the interpretation being
given by the petitioner to the paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
judgment cannot be accepted.
13. Even otherwise, on being asked to read from the
pleadings as to what basic amenities and the basic
physical needs were demanded by the petitioner before the
Tribunal and how they were proved, learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to show that any such
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -23-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
factual averment was made or any evidence was brought
on record with regard to any basic amenities or the
physical needs of the petitioner, not being fulfilled by the
respondent. Hence, even if the interpretation being given
by the petitioner is accepted for the sake of argument, then
also, the requirements of the judgment in Sudesh Chhikara
(supra) are not fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.”
43. The legality of the hereinabove expressed observations was
tested by the aggrieved by filing LPA No.1012 of 2025. However, the
same were affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, by drawing an
order dated 09.05.2025. The relevant paragraphs of this order are
extracted hereunder:-
“10. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that transfer
must be made subject to the condition that transferee shall
provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor and only then if the transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities or physical needs to the transferor
Section 23 (1) of the 2007 Act can be brought into motion.
Only if both the conditions are satisfied by a legal fiction,
then transfer shall be deemed to have been made by way of
fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then
becomes voidable at the instance of transferor and the
Maintenance Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to
declare the transfer void.
11. It was further observed in Sudesh Chhikara's case
(supra) that when a petition under Section 23 of the 2007
Act does not reveal that the deed was executed subject to
the obligation of maintenance stipulated under Section 23
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -24-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
of the 2007 Act and no such finding is recorded by the
Maintenance Tribunal or no oral evidence is adduced by
the parties, then the order of the Tribunal could not be held
to be maintainable.”
44. From the anvil of the above, it needs to be
evaluated/examined by this Court, as to whether, the application filed by
respondent no.3 (senior citizen) before the learned Maintenance Tribunal
concerned, invites the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007,
specifically, keeping in mind that there is no recital in the release/transfer
deeds to the effect that transfer of property by the senior citizen was
subject to providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to him by
the transferee.
45. The jurisdiction of the Senior Citizen's Tribunal, to invoke
the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, is confined to the fact, as
to whether, the document of gift deed or release/transfer deed, includes
express, or implied condition containing a legal obligation on the
transferee to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor; and second, as to whether, the transferee has failed to or
refused to fulfill such obligations.
46. While following the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in “Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another”, this Court can
safely conclude that the first condition containing legal obligation upon
the transferee towards the transferor, is absent in the release/transfer
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -25-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
deeds in question. In that eventuality, it is upon the learned Maintenance
Tribunal concerned, to evaluate from the facts and circumstances ibid and
evidence led, as to whether, such release/transfer deed is subject to the
conditions of providing basic amenties and basic physical needs or not?
47. In the instant case, the learned Maintenance Tribunal
concerned, has failed to carry out such exercise, as explained above.
Further, even if the petitioners were proceeded against ex parte, the
tribunal concerned, is not discharged from its duty to carry out such
exercise. In absence of the two conditions, as explained by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara's case, and also by this Court in
preceding paragraphs, the learned Maintenance Tribunal does not have
any jurisdiction to declare the release/transfer deeds as null and void.
48. Learned counsel for the petitioners while giving details of the
transfer of properties inter se the petitioners, respondent no.3 and
respondent no.4, has specifically emphasised that it is a case of a property
dispute inter se the family, and respondent no.4, is solely responsible for
initiation of proceedings against the present petitioners. This submission
finds strength from the fact that immediately after cancellation of the
release/transfer deeds in question, respondent no.3, opted to transfer the
land in favour of the real sister of respondent no.4, namely Prisha Lamba,
who has been arrayed as respondent no.5.
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -26-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
49. This Court has also referred to the family pedigree, from
where it is clear that Phool Kumar solemnised two marriages; the
petitioners were born out of first marriage with Sangeeta (since died),
whereas, respondents no.4 and 5, born out of second marriage solemnised
with one Santosh (still alive). All these aspects ought to have been taken
into consideration by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, while
adjudicating the issue in dispute, and even the learned Appellate Tribunal
concerned, has also failed to examine this aspect in its right earnest.
50. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that the main
grievance of respondent no.3, can be gathered from his statement suffered
before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, seeking cancellation
of release/transfer deeds. After the the withdrawal of the first application,
the reasons for preferring second application was that the petitioners were
indulging in transferring the transferred properties at throwaway price.
Whether such allegations invites the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of
2007, also ought to have been examined the learned Maintenance Tribunal
concerned. However, through a cryptic and a non-speaking order, the
release/transfer deeds were declared null and void by the learned
Maintenance Tribunal concerned. The relevant part of the examination-in-
chief of respondent no.3 submitted before the learned Maintenance
Tribunal by way of an affidavit is extracted hereinafter:-
“
7.
That I had raised challenge in a petition under section 23
of M. OF. P & Sr. Citizen Act, 2007 titled as Medh Singh
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -27-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
Versus Amandeep etc. Upon learning about the same, the
respondents apologised before me and started serving me and
started expressing their love and affection for me and fully
assured me that neither they wil! transfer the above land in any
manner nor they will create any charge thereupon and will take
care of me in my ailments and at this last stage of my life and
will not attribute any mental and physical harm to me in any
manner and fraudulently got withdrawn the above petition
titled as Medh Singh Versus Amandeep etc. from me on
26.10.2020.
8. That now since long, the respondents especially
respondent No.1 and 2 are misbehaving with me and used to
speak against me and are not serving me, are not providing
treatment to me in ailment and the respondents are threatening
to sell the above land. Now I learnt that the above respondents
No.1 and 2 have internally finalized the deal for sale of above
land to some other person and when I enquired about this, an
attempt was made to strangulate me to death.
9. That the respondents No.1 and 2 are at the verge to
alienate the above said property. The respondents No. 1 and 2
suffers from bad habits, who, by virtue of registered sale deed
Vasika No.2684 dated 18.01.2023, have already sold 33 Kanals
19 Marlas of land and by virtue of registered sale deed
No.8039 dated 20.02.2023, have already sold 500 Sq. Yards of
plot situated in Sector-3 (Part-I), HUDA, Rewari.
10. That keeping in view the above misconduct,
misbehaviour and fraud, I the petitioner wants to declare the
above said document vide Vasika No.1430 and 1431 dated 21-
8-2018, Mutation No. 15552 dated 10.9.2018 entered in favour
of the respondents, as null and void and do not want to give
any of my land to the respondents for the time being so that the
applicant may maintain himself and may lead his remaining life
respectfully and may maintain himself and may spent in his
ailment etc. Surender Mehlwat's M.No.8607824265 and
Tirath's M.No.8059828536.”
51. So far as the learned Appellate Tribunal, is concerned, it has
also failed to examine the legal as well as factual aspect, as explained
above. It has not examined the plea, as raised by the petitioners to the
effect that the application (supra), has been filed by respondent no.3, at
the behest of his grandson (respondent no.4). The statement made by
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -28-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
respondent no.4 before the learned Maintenance Tribunal on 29.09.2023,
wherein, he expressed his inability to offer his services to his grandfather
(respondent no.3), ought to have been considered by the learned Appellate
Tribunal concerned, in its right perspective, in order to evaluate, as to
whether, the application (supra), was in fact, filed by respondent no.3, at
the instance of respondent no.4 to settle the property dispute.
52. The learned Appellate Tribunal concerned, has also failed to
consider, as to whether, there is any positive evidence led by respondent
no.3, to establish that the petitioners had neglected to maintain him after
the execution of release/transfer deeds in question or not?
53. Further, the learned Appellate Tribunal ought to have
considered that the transfer deeds, other than those under dispute, which
were executed in favour of respondent no.4 by respondent no.3, have
never been put to question, despite respondent no.4 having made a
specific statement before the learned Maintenance Tribunal expressing his
inability to maintain his grandfather-respondent no.3.
FINAL ORDER
54. In view of the above, this Court finds that both the impugned
orders do not pass the test of legality, therefore, the same are set aside and
the matter is remanded to the learned Maintenance Tribunal
concerned for adjudication afresh on the application filed under Section
CWP-3641-2024(O&M) & -29-
CWP-32800-2024(O&M)
23 of the Act of 2007, so preferred by respondent no.3 (senior citizen),
while considering the above discussed legal as well as factual aspects,
after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
55. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of
03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
56. All the parties concerned, are directed appear before the
learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, on 10.11.2025 at 11:00 a.m.
57. Needless to assert that anything observed hereinabove is only
for the purpose of adjudicating the legality of the impugned orders,
therefore, the same would not have any bearing upon the quashi judicial
authority concerned, at the time of deciding the lis, afresh. The authority
concerned shall take an independent decision, in view of the position of
law, as explained above.
58. Disposed of accordingly
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the
connected case.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
September 30, 2025 JUDGE
dharamvir/AK Sharmaa
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....