The death of the senior citizen rendered the proceedings infructuous, and the legal heirs were given the liberty to avail civil remedy available under the law.

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-13121-2016 whereby learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Tribunal and rejected the petition filed by the petitioners Gurdeep Singh and others by holding that transfer in favour of the ward is made with the pious hope that the transferee would continue to serve the parents as he was doing prior to execution of the document. Having failed to look after his parents and provide basic amenities to them in their old age, he makes himself liable for avoidance of the transfer deed. It has also been held that in such a situation, a specific condition that the basic amenities would be provided to the parents, needs not be incorporated in the transfer deed and held that the pleas raised before the Court were without any merits and the petition was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Nand Singh father of petitioner No.1 filed petition under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 2007') for cancellation of transfer deed Vasika No.368 dated 07.05.2010 in favour of petitioner No.1 executed by respondent No.2 and transfer deed Vasika No.2053 dated 08.10.2012 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3. It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that he was 85 years old and petitioner No.1, Gurdeep Singh is his son and besides him he has two other sons namely, Hardeep Singh and Jagjit Singh, who were married. He and his three sons had total land measuring 563 Kanal 8 Marlas situated in village Belu Majra @ Munda Kheri, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala and by way of partition all the three sons were given land and he had kept 145 Kanals 16 Marlas land with him for his maintenance. But petitioner No.1 by taking advantage of his illiteracy has got transferred 65 Kanals 1 ½ Marlas land in his favour vide transfer deed Vasika No.368 dated 07.05.2010, by assuring that he would take care of him. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 executed transfer deed Vasika No.2053 dated 08.10.2012 in favour of his wife and son i.e. petitioners No.2 and 3. But petitioner No.1 refused to pay maintenance and take care of respondent No.2, so respondent No.2 filed petition under the Act, 2007, for cancellation of transfer deed Vasika No.368 dated 07.05.2010 and transfer deed Vasika No.2053 dated 08.10.2012 and mutation sanctioned on their basis regarding land in Village Belu Majra @ Munda Kheri, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate/Tribunal/Authority, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. The Tribunal accepted the said petition and declared transfer deed vasika No.368 dated 07.05.2010 void. Accordingly petitioners No.1 to 3, Gurdeep Singh and others approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition.

3. Upon notice of motion respondents appeared and filed reply refuting the allegations made in the writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.11.2017 dismissed the said writ petition. Hence the present LPA.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Single Judge did not at all consider the points raised by the appellants in the said writ petition. Respondent No.2 Nand Singh had executed two identical transfer deeds on the same date, one in favour of appellant No.1 and the other in favour of Hardeep Singh the other son of respondent No.2, who is DSP in police. He has contended that the learned Single Judge had not at all referred to the transfer deed in favour of Hardeep Singh and other son Jagjit Singh. From the family property, respondent No.2 had given more property to his son Hardeep Singh including land of Balliawali District Bathinda and a constructed house situated at Phatak No.1, Patiala. 40 Kanals of land had been purchased in name of Harmanjeet Kaur wife of Jagjit Singh which is mentioned in the transfer deed itself. He has contended that