208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20190-2022 Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 HARNEK SINGH -PETITIONER V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. H.S.Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. T.P.S.Walia, AAG, Punjab Mr. Satpal Sachdeva, Advocate for Mr. Gurbhej Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.3.

*****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the order dated 23.04.2021 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal (respondent no.2), in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2007'), has been challenged, wherethrough the application, preferred by the petitioner (senior citizen), under Section 23 of Act of 2007, for declaring the transfer deed dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) as null and void, has been dismissed. And, the appeal filed against the aforesaid order before the learned Appellate Authority (respondent no.1), has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-6), which is also impugned before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was transferred by the petitioner to his daughter-in-law (respondent no.3), with the condition that she will maintain him during his life time.

3. He further submits that after the death of petitioner's son, this arrangement was made, as there was a positive assurance from respondent no.3, that she will raise his grandson, and will take care of him as well, while living at his residence. However, immediately, after execution of the transfer deed, respondent no.3, stopped maintaining the petitioner, and even left the house, and started residing with her parents, and took away his minor grandson with herself as well.

4. He also submits that though there is no specific condition in the transfer deed, however, there is a specific admission by respondent no.3 (daughter-in-law), before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, that she was maintaining the petitioner, but now she has started living with her parents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, strongly, opposed the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. By placing reliance upon a judgment dated 15.12.2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in “Babu Lal Sharma vs.

Sushila Devi and others” LPA-701-2018, and connected petitions, he submits that any proceedings against the daughter-in-law, under the Act of 2007, is not maintainable.

7. He also draws attention of this Court towards the transfer deed (supra), to submit that there is no recital therein, that the transfer of land, was subject to the condition of maintaining the petitioner (senior citizen) and his wife.

8. He next submits that after the demise of husband of respondent no.3, the land in question was transferred in favour of respondent no.3, in order to settle the family dispute, and to secure the rights of the her son (and grandson of the petitioner), to whom she is now raising on her own.

9. He further submits that the petitioner is now aggrieved on account of respondent no.3 having started residing with her parents, which does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to invoke the provision of Act of 2007.

10. This Court has given due consideration to the submissions, as made on behalf of the parties concerned, and has also examined both the impugned orders.

11. Before this Court evaluate the legality of the impugned orders, lets have a glimpse upon the contents of the transfer deed (Annexure P-1).

12. A perusal of the said transfer deed (supra), vividly postulates that the transfer of land was made on account of a family settlement, which does not contain any condition, to the effect that the transfer of land was subject to the condition of maintaining the petition