The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions stipulated in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are applicable even if they are orally stipulated and not necessarily in writing or part of the transfer document.

JUDGMENT

S.J. Vazifdar, Chief Justice. - The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 02.06.2017 referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench for the determination of the following questions or any other questions arising in the context thereof:-

i) Whether the judgment in Jagmeet Kaur Pannu v. Ranjit Kaur Pannu which lays down that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his/ her son/ daughter would be irrevocable as per provisions of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act whereas Section 3 of the Maintenance Act specifically contains a non-obstante clause and provides that the provisions of the Maintenance Act will have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act is a good law?

ii) Whether a senior citizen will be debarred from seeking relief under Section 23 of the Maintenance Act in case a senior citizen has transferred his/ her property to any of his / her relatives/ children out of love and affection in case the transfer deed does not specifically provide a condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and whether any specific promise is required in the transfer deed for providing of basic amenities and basic physical needs in future till the life of the senior citizen and when a transfer is made by a senior citizen in favour of his/ her relative/ children on account of love and affection and services rendered, whether the promise of providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor would not be an implied condition in view of the objective and scheme of the Act?

iii) Whether in the judgment in Jagmeet Kaur Pannu v. Ranjit Kaur Pannu's case, the principle of interpretation of statutes of `Generalisbus specialia derogant' i.e. prior general Act may be effected by the subsequent particular/ special Act, has been ignored while relying upon the provisions of the Transport of Property Act in context to the wording of the transfer deed in favour of close relations?

iv) Whether the principles of harmonious construction of two separate statutes i.e. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, can be applied when both the Acts deal in different subjects and are not parimateria?

v) Whether the expression used in one Act could be used in another Act especially when there is a non-obstante provision in Section 3 of the Maintenance Act? and

vi) Whether alienation of property by way of gift or otherwise by any citizen would be deemed to be the result of fraud, coercion or undue influence, if transferee does not provide basic amenities to the transferor.

The learned Judge concluded the order of reference as follows:-

"In view of the above circumstances, the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench for determination of the above said questions or any other question arisen in context to the above said points which are of public importance. The review petition bearing RA No. 214-CII of 2016 in CR No. 7598 of 2015 in which operation of the judgment has been stayed also requires to be listed before the Division Bench as the correctness of law laid down in the judgment of Jagmeet Kaur Pannu's case (supra) is sub-judice in Review Application No. 214-CII of 2016 in CR No. 7598 of 2015 which is in conflict with the objective of the Maintenance Act, 2007 and contrary to the spirit of non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Maintenance Act and the judgment of this Court in Promil Tomar's case (supra) and Sumesh Anand's case (supra). As the correctness of the judgment in Jagmeet Kaur Pannu's case (supra) is debatable and the question of law involved in the said case is left open by Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been consistently arising before the Courts being