The main legal point established is the importance of fulfilling the basic needs of senior citizens under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, and the application of the principle of lis pendens in subsequent transfer deeds.

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.3-Bhajan Singh had filed an application on 20.04.2018 against his four sons i.e. Dara Singh, Avtar Singh, Sikander Singh and Harjinder Singh (respondent Nos.4 to 7 respectively) under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as “Senior Citizens Act”) for cancellation of transfer deed No.784 dated 03.06.2016. The first authority under the Act accepted the said application vide order dated 27.02.2020 and cancelled the transfer deed dated 03.06.2016. Respondent No.4-Dara Singh filed an appeal against the said order and the Appellate Tribunal on 19.11.2020 set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 and remanded the case back to the first authority to decide the case on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. The first authority, in the second round of litigation, vide order dated 26.03.2021, disposed of the application under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act by only granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each per month to respondent No.3 and did not order cancellation of the transfer deed. An appeal was filed against the said order, by respondent No.3 and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure P-2), allowed the said appeal and cancelled the transfer deed dated 03.06.2016 by observing that respondent No.3-Bhajan Singh was aged about 75 years and was a senior citizen and had transferred 44 bighas 16 biwas 7 biswasi of land situated in village Flaud Khurd in the name of his four sons vide transfer deed dated 03.06.2016 and in the said transfer deed, it was specifically mentioned that in case the beneficiaries do not take care of the executant, then the senior citizen/respondent No.3 would have a right to get the transfer deed cancelled under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. It was further observed that the four sons of respondent No.3, in whose favour the transfer deed was executed, did not take care of respondent No.3 and did not provide the requisite needs of life to respondent No.3 and the respondents therein could not adduce any evidence to show that they had ever given any maintenance to their father or had provided anything to meet the basic needs of respondent No.3. It was the case of respondent No.3 that Avtar Singh, Sikander and Harjinder Singh had gone abroad and that he had spent his hard-earned money for sending the said sons abroad and the said sons had forgotten respondent No.3 and were not taking care of him. It was further the case of respondent No.3 that respondent No.4-Dara Singh, father of the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, never took care of respondent No.3 and in fact, the said respondent No.4 and petitioner No.2 used to fight and abuse respondent No.3. It is the order dated 01.11.2021 which is sought to be challenged by the petitioners after a delay of more than 2 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.4 had executed a transfer deed dated 23.05.2018 in favour of the present petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the son and the wife of respondent No.4 respectively and the said two persons had not been made a party in the proceedings before the authorities below and had not been granted an opportunity of hearing and thus, the entire proceedings and the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is 100% disabled and for the said purpose, reference has been made to the Certificate (Annexure P-5). It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to take care of respondent No.3.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the