IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 17, 2026 KAPUR SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. P.K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, an octogenarian senior citizen, has knocked on the doors of this Court seeking to set aside the orders dated 21.12.2020 and 17.11.2021, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, respectively.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2007”), seeking cancellation of Transfer Deed No.650 dated 23.12.2016, executed by him in favour of his sons, namely respondents No.4 and 5, along with cancellation of the consequential mutation. The application did not find favour with the Maintenance Tribunal and was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2020. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which also met the same fate of dismissal vide order dated

17.11.2021.

3. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Act of 2007 is a benevolent legislation intended to protect senior citizens and ensure their basic needs are met. It is contended that post execution of the transfer deed in question, the respondents No.4 and 5 not only failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner but also subjected him to ill-treatment and harassment, including physical assault, instances whereof were quoted in the petition and such assault led to the registration of an FIR at the petitioner’s instance. Accordingly, it is argued that the Maintenance Tribunal ought to have invoked Section 23 of the Act of 2007 to cancel the transfer deed.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the transfer deed in question does not contain any recital or stipulation rendering the transfer conditional upon the transferees maintaining or providing for the transferor, which is a sine qua non for invoking Section 23. It is further submitted that the present proceedings are a fallout of an inter se family property dispute between the respondents No.4 and 5, and that the petition under Section 23 was engineered at the instance of respondent No.5 to secure an advantage in that dispute, thereby amounting to a misuse of the provisions of the Act of 2007 and an abuse of the process of law.

5. Elaborating on the aforesaid submission, learned counsel contends that the petitioner was the owner of approximately 42 Bighas of land, out of which 21 Bighas were transferred in equal shares to the respondents No.4 and 5, and 18 Bighas along with one shop were transferred in favour of the grandsons (sons of respondent No.5).

Significantly, in the petition under Section 23, the petitioner sought cancellation only of the transfer deed pertaining to 21 Bighas executed in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5, while no challenge was laid to the transfer of 18 Bighas and one shop in favour of the sons of respondent No.5. It is thus argued that the selective challenge itself demonstrates that the proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent No.5 to settle a property dispute with respondent No.4. It is also submitted that a civil suit seeking cancellation of the same transfer deed is already pending adjudication.

6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to adjudicate the dispute at hand, it is deemed imperative to begin with examining Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, hi