IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 09, 2026 Chattan Singh .. Appellant Versus The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.12664 of 2023 by which, the claim of the appellant-senior citizen that the land in question, which was transferred by him in favour of respondent No.3-Kamalpreet Singh, should be set aside, has not been accepted and only the benefit of maintenance qua property transferred has been granted.

2. Certain facts may be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The land owned by the appellant-senior citizen was transferred in favour of three grandsons with the condition stipulated therein that they will take care of him. As the appellant-senior citizen felt that he is not being taken care by the transferee coupled with the fact that he did not had any other source of income and was unable to look after himself as he was unable to purchase the medicines for the ailment suffered by him, he approached the Tribunal for the grant of benefit of reversion of property transferred back to him under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Act’).

4. Though initially, the Tribunal granted said benefit of reversion of property to senior citizen but on an appeal preferred by the grandsons against said order, the said order of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh adjudication as per law.

5. Thereafter, the Tribunal after appreciating the facts and evidence brought on record held that the claim of the appellant-senior citizen for cancellation of the transfer deed was not made out and rather the appellant-senior citizen was granted the benefit of maintenance as per which, a sum of Rs.8,000/- each was to be paid by the three grandsons amounting to a total of Rs.24,000/-.

6. As the appellant never raised a claim qua maintenance and was only agitating a claim qua cancellation of the transfer deed, he preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the 2007 Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, which appeal came to be dismissed and ultimately, a writ petition was filed for cancellation of the transfer deed dated 09.01.2017 in favour of respondent No.3 Kamalpreet Singh. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge leading to the preferring of the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that once there was an express condition stipulated in the transfer deed, as per which the transferees were to take care of the appellant-senior citizen, which was not being done by the transferees, requirements stipulated under Section 23 of 2007 Act so as to revert the property to the transferor stood proved and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authorities denying him the relief of the cancellation of the transfer deed in favour of respondent No.3- Kamalpreet Singh is incorrect and without appreciating the actual facts as well as provisions of the 2007 Act.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

9. It may be noticed that the findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge that it is not a case where the senior citizen is not being taken care of by the transferees but rather it is a family dispute where the senior citizen is being instigated by interested parties i.e. the other grandsons to get the land transferred in favour of respondent No.3 cancelled so that they can have the said land in