Children have a legal obligation to maintain their elderly parents, and failure to do so can result in the cancellation of property transfers made under such conditions.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.3 who is the father of petitioner No.1 had filed an application dated 18.03.2021 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 2007 Act") for setting aside the transfer deed dated 23.08.2017 executed by him in favour of petitioner No.1 with respect to land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas. Challenge was also made to the transfer deed dated 12.10.2017 vide which petitioner No.1 had further transferred 32 kanals 7 marlas out of the above land to his wife-petitioner No.2. A perusal of the application (Annexure P-3) would show that respondent No.3 was stated to be 92 years of age and was a senior citizen when the application was filed in the year 2021. It was further stated in paras 3 and 4 that respondent No.3 was owner in possession of sufficient land and after having transferred the property in favour of his sons, he was left with 34 kanals 8 marlas of land so as to manage his expenses in old age and even the said land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas was transferred by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner No.1 on the condition that petitioner No.1 would render all the services to respondent No.3 during his lifetime and would provide meals, clothing etc. to respondent No.3 and will not misappropriate the land. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the said assurances, respondent No.3 transferred the abovesaid land in favour of petitioner No.1 without taking any money and that thereafter, the behaviour of petitioner No.1 i.e. his son and petitioner No.2 i.e. his daughter-in-law changed towards respondent No.3 and they stopped providing any meals, clothing, medicines etc. to respondent No.3 and to maintain him. It was pleaded that petitioner No.1 in order to usurp the property had transferred the same in favour of petitioner No.2 who is his wife vide transfer deed dated 12.10.2017. The said transfer deed itself shows the mala fide intent of petitioner No.1. It is pleaded in para 9 that respondent No.3 was old aged and was unable to maintain himself and thus, prayed that transfer deed be cancelled.

A joint written statement was filed by the petitioners which has been annexed as Annexure P-4. The fact that respondent No.3 was 92 years of age and was a senior citizen and had transferred the property in question in favour of petitioner No.1 was not disputed. Even the fact that petitioner No.1 had further transferred the property in favour of petitioner No.2 was also not disputed. In para 6 of the written statement, it was also stated by the petitioners that respondent No.3 was hard of hearing and also did not have proper eye-sight. The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, vide order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), allowed the said application. A perusal of the said order would show that on 15.09.2021, the petitioners had come present and had assured that they would maintain respondent No.3 and keep him with them but thereafter on 20.09.2021, while appearing in the Court, petitioner No.1 and his son started quarreling and speaking loudly with respondent No.3 and the Court, after considering the attitude of petitioner No.1, formed an opinion that the promise made by petitioner No.1 was doubtful and that in the said circumstances, respondent No.3 cannot be left with the petitioners. It was further observed that the fact that petitioner No.1 had transferred the property in favour of his wife on 12.10.2017 also shows the mala fide intent of the petitioners and thus, accordingly allowed the application. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal-c