A transfer deed executed by a son in favor of a senior citizen can be canceled if the son fails to provide the agreed basic amenities, as per Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Mr. 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 21.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that a transfer deed dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) was executed by respondent No.4-Senior Citizen in favour of the present petitioner, who is his son, with respect to land measuring 26 kanals 14 marlas. In the said transfer deed, specific condition was recorded to the effect that the transferee i.e., present petitioner will provide all the basic amenities to the transferor i.e. senior citizen and in case of his failure to do so, the transferor will have the right to take back the property as per the provisions of section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 2007"). On 28.10.2021, respondent No.4 filed an application for cancellation of the said transfer deed dated 11.01.2021, in addition to the cancellation of the second transfer deed which was executed by respondent No.4 in favour of his other son-respondent No.5. In the said application, the age of respondent No.4 was stated to be 72 years and it was specifically averred in para 2 of the application that respondent No.4 was the owner in possession of the land in question, which has not been disputed in the reply (Annexure P-5) filed by the present petitioner inasmuch as, paras 2 and 3 of the application are stated to be correct in the said reply. It was further averred in para 4 of the said application that the petitioner had given confidence to respondent No.4 that he would serve respondent No.4 in his old age and would take care of his medicines and other medical needs and it was on the basis of the said statement that the land was transferred by virtue of the transfer deed in question by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. It was averred that since the last six months preceding the filing of the application, the petitioner was not taking care of respondent No.4.

3. A reply was filed by the present petitioner in which, the aspect of respondent No.4 being senior citizen and having given the property to the petitioner was not disputed. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No.4 was a mischievous person and used to pick quarrels in his old age and that even FIR No.188 dated 11.11.2020 under Sections 323, 427, 506, 307, 34 of IPC was registered against respondent No.4 and other persons. It was averred that the transfer deed was executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner, out of his free will and consent. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as "the Maintenance Tribunal"), had disposed of the application by directing the petitioner and respondent No.5 to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.4 and with a further direction to the petitioner and respondent No.5 not to quarrel with respondent No.4. It was noticed in the said order that the petitioner, during the pendency of the case, had transferred a part of the property to one Kiran Bala wife of Jagbir. A perusal of the said order would show that no reason was given as to why the main relief for cancellation of the transfer deed was not granted by the Maintenance Tribunal. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the said order which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) and it was ordered that the land which remained with the present petitioner be transferred back in favour of respondent No.4 and in view of the same, the petitioner was not required to pay the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. A perusal of the said order would show that it was observed by the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner had made the life of respondent No.4 very difficult and had boycotted respondent No.4 socially and that the petitioner did not respect his mother a