JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Case No. 81/2018 by Sub-divisional Officer, Barasat (Sadar), North 24-Parganas this revisional application has been preferred

2. The petitioner contended that the opposite party no.1, being father of the petitioner was owner of a plot of land measuring 13 decimal of land together with two storied building at Ashoknagar, North 24 Parganas. The opposite party no. 1 was a State Government employee and retired from service and used to reside with his elder son, i.e. the petitioner in the said property. The opposite party no.1 by way of amicable settlement, decided to settle all the amounts he got at the time of retirement, as retiral benefits and his other properties to his sons after retirement. Amicably , he decided to give his retiral benefits to his younger son opposite party no.2 and the aforesaid house property to the petitioner, i.e. elder son.

3. The petitioner used to take care of his parents since long and maintained a cordial relationship with them. As a result of such amicable settlement, opposite party no.1 executed a deed of gift in favour of his elder son, the petitioner herein and gifted such property measuring 13 decimal of land along with two storied building as above.

4. The petitioner further claims that in the said deed of gift it has been clearly stated by the opposite party no.1 that he was very pleased with the conduct of elder son/petitioner and he was very much compassionate to his son and he also mentioned in the deed that he has gifted his retiral benefits to his youngest son/opposite party no.2.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has duly accepted the said deed of gift and his name also recorded in the concerned land records.

6. Petitioner alleged that in the above backdrop, all on a sudden the opposite party no.1 made an application before the Tribunal for annulment of the aforesaid deed of gift without serving any copy of the same upon the petitioner herein under the provision of maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007(hereinafter called as Act of 2007).

7. The petitioner contended that he has, however, received a notice from the Tribunal without any copy of the application and contested the same. The petitioner alleged that the he was not allowed to represent through any advocate or law knowing person.

8. However, the learned Tribunal after contested hearing was pleased to declare the said deed of gift as void by its impugned order dated 28.11.2018.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no grievance was found to have recorded that the petitioner has ever neglected his parents or acted against any terms of the deed either in fact or in law. The Tribunal has acted illegally with material irregularity by declaring the said deed of gift as void under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007. As there is no such refusal or failure on the part of the petitioner herein in providing any basic amenities and physical needs which is a condition precedent in applying section 23(1) of the Act, Learned Tribunal acted illegally without appreciating that in the order it is clearly stated that it is the only wish of opposite party no.1 to divide his property equally between his two sons. It is to be mentioned that the said order of annulment of deed of gift is being passed to respect the desire of the opposite party no. 1 to divide the properties equally amongst two sons and, accordingly, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to apply said provision of such Act. The Act of opposite party no. 1 itself ultra vires being contrary in nature since there cannot be conditional gift nor there is any cogent ground to pass for such order of annulment of deed. Accordingly, his prayer is for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 refers to the preamble of the Act and contended that this is an Act to provide more effective provisions for the Ma