The court affirmed that a transfer deed can be cancelled if the transferee fails to fulfill the basic needs of the transferor as stipulated under Section 23(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral)

The instant intra court appeal arises out of judgment dated 19.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant through which he had challenged order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short - Collector) and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Derabassi (for short - SDM).

2. The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present appeal are that through transfer deed dated 14.06.2017 (for short - the deed) respondent No.4, who is the appellant's mother, transferred half share each in the property in question in favour of the appellant and respondent No.5, who is the appellant's brother. In the deed, it was specifically mentioned that the beneficiaries under the deed, shall provide basic needs to the transferor and if they failed to do so, then as per section 23 (2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short - the 2007 Act), the deed shall stand cancelled.

3. In October, 2022, respondent No.4 filed an application before the SDM seeking therein cancellation of the deed on the ground that after the transfer, the transferees were not taking care of respondent No.4 and were also not fulfilling any of her basic needs. The SDM sought a report from the Tehsildar and on receipt of the same, the SDM found merit in respondent No.4's application. Accordingly, the SDM ordered cancellation of the deed.

4. The appellant filed an appeal before the Collector, who after hearing learned counsel for the contesting parties and going through the record concurred with the order appealed against resulting in dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

5. The appellant then petitioned this Court to challenge therein the orders of the SDM and the Collector. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before a learned Single Judge of this Court that there was nothing on the record that which of respondent No.4's basic needs were not being fulfilled particularly when she was in receipt of Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent as also getting monthly pension of Rs. 1,500/- which amounts were enough to cater to all her basic needs. It was further submitted that the application filed by respondent No.4 was actuated by mala fide as the same was at the instance of the appellant's brother-Jasbir Singh who had eyes on the property transferred under the deed.

6. The learned Single Judge concluded that the submissions made by the appellant with regard to receipt of rent and pension by respondent No.4 were not supported by any evidence and that the appellant had also failed to show as to what efforts had been made by him to provide basic needs to respondent No.4. The learned Single Judge further referred to the pleadings before the SDM to hold that the appellant used to badly treat respondent No.4 and also fight with her. Accordingly, the appellant's writ petition was dismissed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by submitting that in the deed, respondent No.4 has specifically stated that the appellant and respondent No.5 have been good sons and therefore, she was transferring her property to them; there was nothing on record to show that the appellant had, after execution of the transfer deed treated respondent No.4 badly; respondent No.4 was in receipt of monthly rent @ Rs. 15,000/- and monthly pension of Rs. 1,500/- which was taking care of all her basic needs and that respondent No.4 had also not brought on record as to which of her basic needs were not being catered to by the appellant.

8. The submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant have been considered.

9. It is not disputed that at the time of executing the transfer deed dated 14.06.2017, respondent No.4 was the owner of the property which was transferred through the said deed and that at tha