” This is a very unfortunate legal battle in which daughter and mother are pitted against each other.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that while living together in a dwelling house owned by the respondent, a sense of discord persisted between the parties. Feeling disgruntled due to total apathy of the petitioner towards her moral and social obligation, the respondent laid a claim petition under Sections 4, 5 & 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (for short, ' Act of 2007”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Assistant District Collector, Jodhpur (for short, ' learned Tribunal” ).

3. In the petition, it was inter alia averred by the respondent that she is owner of a dwelling house situated at Bajrang Colony, Golnadi, Ummed Chowk, Jodhpur. The respondent performed marriage of the petitioner as per Hindu rites and rituals and offered her requisite dowry. After marriage, on some occasions, when petitioner visited respondent, the respondent informed her that she is unable to maintain herself as there is no source of income for incurring medical expenses and other requirements. As per version of the respondent, petitioner assured her that she will provide maintenance and look-after her if the dwelling house is transferred in her name by executing a testamentary instrument. The respondent has also stated in the petition that petitioner assured her that she will not occupy the dwelling house during her lifetime. On that assurance, the Will was executed on 30th of November, 2011, which was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar II, Jodhpur. The respondent has made a specific averment in the complaint that after execution of the Will, petitioner never visited her and no endeavour was made by her to pay maintenance. It is also stated in the petition that petitioner has occupied the dwelling house without there being any authority and being old and infirm respondent was unable to resist her from taking possession of the dwelling house. With these averments, prayer was made for eviction of petitioner from the dwelling house and to grant her any other relief.

4. The petition laid on behalf of respondent was contested by petitioner and all the allegations were denied. In her return, the petitioner has stated that out of five children she is youngest and she is faithfully observing her obligation to maintain the respondent. As per version of the petitioner, eldest son of the respondent is well-off being contractor and elder daughter is also affluent as her husband is having sufficient means, but the respondent has unnecessarily made this complaint on false and fabricated facts just to harass her.

5. After submission of the reply, the learned Tribunal heard arguments and vide impugned order allowed the petition laid by the respondent. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has cancelled Will dated 30th of November, 2011, which was executed by respondent in favour of the petitioner, and has also ordered eviction of the petitioner from the house within fifteen days.

6. The writ petition is contested by respondent and reply is filed defending the impugned order. It is submitted in the reply that petitioner has forcibly entered into the house in question and her intention is to grab the property during lifetime of the respondent. It is also submitted in the return that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act of 2007, which calls for no interference.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Mehra, has argued that the order impugned to the extent it has declared the Will executed by respondent in favour of petitioner as null and void, is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is not sustainable. Mr. Mehra has submitted that the Will as such is not transfer of property when testator is alive, and therefore, Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is not at all attracted in the instant case. Learned counsel Mr. Me