Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Mohd. Zakaria – Petitioner
Versus
Inamul Haque & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9422 of 2015 & CM No. 22021 of 2015
Decided On : 10-10-2017
Maintenance Tribunal - Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over a property between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, who is the father of the Petitioner and two other respondents. The father sought to declare a relinquishment deed as void and to receive maintenance allowance from the Petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relinquishment deed was obtained by the Petitioner in lieu of monetary consideration paid/promised to be paid to his brothers and sisters. The court also held that the Petitioner failed to provide the promised amenities and physical needs to the father, rendering the transfer of property void under Section 23 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the relinquishment deed, the fulfillment of promises made by the Petitioner, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to issue certain directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relinquishment deed was obtained in lieu of monetary consideration and that the Petitioner failed to provide the promised amenities and physical needs, leading to the declaration of the transfer of property as void under Section 23 of the Act. The court also found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in certain directions issued.
Final Decision: The court upheld the finding that the relinquishment deed was void and set aside certain directions issued by the Tribunal, while affirming the maintenance allowance to be paid by the Petitioner to the father.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The Petitioner impugns the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal (under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Respondent No. 1 is the father of the Petitioner and Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 was the Petitioner before the Maintenance Tribunal.
3. By the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 the Maintenance Tribunal has directed as under:
(1) That the relinquishment deed bearing registered No. 20710 in book No.1 vol No. 6806 on page 191 to 195 doted 5/10/2012, regarding H. No. 48, situated at old Brij Puri, Khureji Khas, Delhi 51 is hereby declared as void, to the extent of Petitioner's ownership right of 1/4th share measuring about 53 sq. yards in the said property.
(2) That the Respondent No.1 shall handover back to the Petitioner 1/4th portion about 53 sq. yards (from Ground Floor to Top Floor including open terrace) of the property, and get, the same properly demarcated by brick wall within 30 days, of the receipt of order.
(3) That all the three Respondents 1 to 3 shall make a payment of Rs.2000/- each per month as maintenance allowance to the Petitioner by 10th of every month every month by depositing the same in the bank account of the Petitioner or cash payment against proper acknowledgement receipt.
(4) That all the Respondents shall look after and take proper care of the Petitioner.
(5) That the SHO P.S. Brij Puri, Delhi shall ensure timely compliance of the above orders, and status/action taken report in this regard be sent to the tribunal. The SHO shall also ensure safety and protection of life of the Petitioner.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that the mother of the Petitioner was the owner of property bearing No. 48, Old Brij Puri, Khureji Khas, Delhi. Apart from the above-referred property, the mother also left behind a property bearing no. A-10/1, Chauhan Bangar, Jafrabad Road, Delhi. The mother of the Petitioner and Respondent nos. 2 and 3 died on 01.04.1993 leaving behind Respondent no. 1, her husband, three sons and seven daughters.
5. It is contended that earlier, Respondent No. 1 had made a claim that the property situated at Jafrabad Road, Delhi had been orally gifted to him by his wife, i.e., late mother of the Petitioner. The claim was rejected by Award dated 14.01.1996.
6. It is contended that Respondent no. 1 after the demise of his wife contracted a second marriage at the age of 66 years with a lady of 25 years of age. It is contended that when objections were raised by the neighbours, Respondent No. 1 shifted to Varansi.
7. The Petitioner as well as his brothers and sisters executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Respondent no. 1 in respect of Jafrabad Road property. It is contended that subsequently thereto the said property has been sold by Respondent no. 1 and the sale proceeds appropriated by him.
8. A Relinquishment Deed was executed by the Respondent no. 1 as well as all the brothers and sisters of the Petitioner, in favour of the Petitioner on 03.10.2012 in respect of the property situated at Old Brij Puri, Khureji Khas, Delhi.
9. Respondent no. 1 filed a petition under Section 9 & 23 of the Act against the Petitioner as well as the Respondent nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the three sons of Respondent no. 1.
10. It is contended, by Respondent No. 1, in the said petition before the Maintenance Tribunal, that the property bearing No. 48, Old Brij Puri, Khureji Khas, Delhi was purchased by Respondent no. 1 but registered in the name of his deceased wife.
11. It is contended, in the said petition, that the Petitioner being the youngest son of Respondent no. 1 persuaded and prevailed upon the Respondent no. 1 to relinquish his ownership right in the said property in favour of the Petitioner.
12. It is contended, in the said petition, that the Petitioner had assured that Respondent no. 1 shall have full right to live in the said property during his life time and he shall be suitably looked a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
