Under the relevant legislation, a property transfer conditional upon the provision of maintenance is voidable if the transferee fails to provide such basic amenities. The failure to fulfill this obligation creates a legal fiction of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, justifying the cancellation of the transfer.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2- Maintenance Tribunal, whereby the application preferred by his father (respondent No.3) under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) was allowed and the transfer deed executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner further assails the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.1- Appellate Tribunal, whereby his statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 was dismissed.

2. Assailing the impugned orders, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 conspicuously lacked the necessary pleadings to invoke the said provision for cancellation of the transfer deed. It is contended that the application did not disclose any specific instance of neglect or failure on the part of the petitioner, as transferee, to maintain respondent No.3 after execution of the transfer deed, nor was any evidence adduced by respondent No.3 to substantiate such allegations. Moreover, respondent No.3 did not enter the witness box to support his claims of neglect and non-maintenance. Consequently, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against respondent No.3, however, the Tribunal failed to do so and further erred in not appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner in its proper perspective.

3. Learned senior counsel further submits that this litigation is, in fact, instigated by the petitioner’s brother with the oblique motive of settling inter se family property dispute under the garb of the Act of 2007, thereby amounting to an abuse of the process of law and misuse of the said enactment. It is contended that respondent No.3 is financially independent and, during the pendency of the instant lis, even transferred additional land in favour of the petitioner’s brother, demonstrating that he is not dependent on maintenance. It is nonetheless asserted that the petitioner has, at all times, been ready and willing to maintain respondent No.3. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel places reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP-12664-2023 ( Chattan Singh vs. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali, District Mohali and others ), CWP-17815-2024 ( Visakha Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner and others ), and CWP-17873-2024 ( Narain Singh and another vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Patiala and others ).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 defends the impugned orders and submits that the application under Section 23 specifically averred that the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner out of love and affection, without consideration, and subject to the condition that the petitioner would provide maintenance and basic amenities to respondent No.3 so as to enable him to live with dignity. It is further submitted that the transfer deed itself contains an explicit stipulation entitling respondent No.3 to seek cancellation in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge his obligations of maintenance.

5. It is further contended that, in support of his case of neglect and abandonment, respondent No.3 examined an independent witness, namely Gurmukh Singh, Sarpanch of the village concerned, who categorically deposed that the petitioner never provided any financial assistance from abroad to hi