Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Sarabjit Kaur – Appellant
Vs.
District Collector-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, Barnala – Respondent
C.W.P. No. 17025 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-03-2016
For the Appellant : Ramesh Hooda
For the Respondent: Suresh Singla, Anmol Rattan Sidhu, S.K. Sharma
The main legal point established was that the transfer deed did not impose a condition for the provision of basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the rights acquired under the transfer deed could not be affected by a statement made by a co-transferee.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the transfer of ownership deeds of agricultural land and the application of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer deed did not impose a condition for the provision of basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transfer was a gift for the services rendered by the daughters. The court also held that the rights acquired under the transfer deed could not be affected by a statement made by a co-transferee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer deed could be deemed to be cancelled under Section 23 of the Act due to the failure to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 23 of the Act and emphasized that the transfer deed did not impose a condition for future provision of amenities, and the rights acquired under the transfer deed could not be affected by a statement made by a co-transferee.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Petitioner is the daughter of respondent No. 3 and sister of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The family tree of the petitioner is as under:-
Harchand Singh @ Chand Singh S/o Hardit Singh was the owner of land measuring 44 Kanal 04 Marlas, 58 Kanal 15 Marlas, 25 Kanal 10 Marlas and some other land, situated in the revenue estate of village Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala. He left behind his widow Bachan Kaur who inherited the aforesaid property. Gurmail Singh S/o Harchand Singh had four children, namely, Gobinder Singh (since deceased), Hardish Kaur (daughter-respondent No. 4), Sarabjit Kaur (daughter-petitioner) and Manjit Kaur (daughter-respondent No. 5). Bachan Kaur and Gurmail Singh executed their respective Wills in favour of Surjit Kaur-respondent No. 3 on 25.02.1999 vide Vasika Nos.216 and 217 respectively. Bachan Kaur died on 19.06.2007 and the property left behind by her was mutated in favour of respondent No. 3 on 15.08.2007. Gurmail Singh died on 14.11.2007 and his property was also mutated in favour of respondent No. 3 on 06.01.2008. On 26.06.2010, a family arrangement was arrived at in which respondent No. 4 got 54 Kanals 10 Marlas of land, whereas petitioner and respondent No. 5 got 75 Kanal 19 Marlas of land to the extent of half share each.
2. Respondent No. 3 executed two transfer of ownership deeds vide Vasika No. 817 dated 30.07.2010 of land measuring 75 Kanal 19 Marlas in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to the extent of share each and Vasika No. 816 of land measuring 54 Kanal 10 Marlas in favour of respondent No. 4 on the same day. Mutation No. 7454 dated 14.06.2012 was also sanctioned regarding the transfer of land by Vasika No. 817 dated 30.07.2010 of the land measuring 75 Kanal 19 Marlas in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to the extent of share each. The petitioner sold 11 Kanal 08 Marlas of land to Jasveer Kaur wife of Devinder Singh and Jaskaran Singh S/o Devinder Singh vide registered sale deeds No. 472 and 473 both dated 06.06.2012.
3. Respondent No. 3 filed Civil Suit No. 554 dated 23.12.2011 in the Court of Civil Judge, Barnala for declaration to the effect that the transfer of ownership deeds No. 816 in favour of respondent No. 4, and 817 in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are null and void having been executed by playing fraud and misrepresentation. A compromise was arrived at in that suit and an application dated 31.01.2012 was filed for withdrawal of the suit. The statement of respondent No. 3 was recorded regarding compromise and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.01.2012. It is alleged that respondent No. 3, having been instigated by respondent No. 4, who had the lion share of 54 Kanal 10 Marlas, filed two applications under Sections 9 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the learned Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act, one against the petitioner and respondent No.5 and another against respondent No. 4. The Tribunal fixed the interim maintenance for respondent No. 3 to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- per month, ordered to be paid in equal shares of Rs. 2,500/- by all the three daughters. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 appeared before the Tribunal and suffered a statement that she had no objection if the application under Section 23 of the Act is allowed and the transfer of ownership deed No.817 dated 30.07.2010 is cancelled. Both the applications were decided by two separate orders dated 18.09.2012. The application filed against the petitioner and respondent No.5 for maintenance was decided, directing them to pay Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 3 and similar order was passed against respondent No. 4 to pay Rs. 2,500/- but the application for cancellation of transfer of ownership deed was dismissed. Respondent No. 3 challenged the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Tribunal by way of two separate appeals before the Appellate
