JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

CM-7378-CWP-2023

This is an application under section 151 CPC for placing on record written reply along with Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/4.

2. The application is allowed. Written reply along with Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/4 are taken on record.

CWP-20642-2022

3. This is a civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.2 i.e., the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Garshankar vide which the transfer deeds dated 06.09.2018 and 08.10.2018 executed by respondent no.3 in favour of the petitioner have been set aside and also the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by respondent no.1 i.e., the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2007') Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2019 has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders primarily on two grounds. Firstly it is submitted that after the transfer was made by respondent no.3, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner through transfer deeds dated 06.09.2018 and 08.10.2018, the petitioner had further sold the same on 16.10.2018 to respondent no.4 Daljit Kaur Sangha, who is the maternal aunt (Mami) of the petitioner and the said sale was done with the consent of the present petitioner and thus, the application filed by respondent no.3 under the Act of 2007 was not maintainable. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, after the execution of transfer deed by respondent no.3 in favour of the petitioner, had gone to Australia and from there, he had sent Rs.10,000/- on 14.09.2019 for which postal receipt dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) has been relied upon to prima facie show that the petitioner had been taking care of respondent no.3. It is submitted that on the basis of said two grounds, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the transfer deeds dated 06.09.2018 and 08.10.2018 deserve to be upheld.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that in the present case, a perusal of the application (Annexure R-3/1) would show that the same was filed on 25.10.2018 and in the said application, it was stated that the present petitioner had assured that he would provide meals and daily necessities of life to respondent no.3 and also serve him in his old age and thereafter, respondent no.3 transferred 13 kanal 6 marla of land through the said two transfer deeds. It is further submitted that it has been averred in paragraph 9 of the application that one week prior to 25.10.2018, the petitioner had turned out respondent no.3 from his house after giving beatings to him and had refused to maintain respondent no.3 and without his consent, had transferred the property in favour of respondent no.4 on 16.10.2018 which was within a period of 9 days from the date of the second transfer deed i.e., 08.10.2018. It is stated that since the ingredients of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 were fully met, thus, the impugned orders have been rightly passed. With respect to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the transfer made by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.4 was with the consent of the respondent no.3, it is submitted that there are specific averments in the application filed by respondent no.3 with respect to no consent having been given by him. Further reference has been made to the reply (Annexure R-3/2) moreso, paragraph 9, filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to show that a contradictory plea has been taken by the petitioner on the said aspect inasmuch as, at one stage it has been state