IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 20, 2026 KARAN SINGH -PETITIONER V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GURUGRAM AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate, and Ms. Sarita, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

***

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 09.03.2022 and 29.08.2023, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, respectively.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner filed an application under the provisions 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.581 dated 04.06.2018, executed by him in favour of his four sons, namely respondent No.3 and proforma respondents No.4 to 6, along with cancellation of the consequential mutation. The application did not find favour with the Maintenance Tribunal and was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which also met the same fate of dismissal vide order dated 29.08.2023.

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 respondent No.3 not only failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner but also misbehaved, instances whereof were quoted in the application. Accordingly, it is argued that, by virtue of the deeming provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, the transfer deed is the result of fraud/

coercion, warranting its cancellation by the Maintenance Tribunal.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the application and the transfer deed in question do not invoke the mischief of Section 23. It is argued that the transfer deed in question is the formal recognition of a family partition that took place 25 years ago. Further, the petitioner, being an Ex-Subedar of the Indian Army, receives a pension of ₹40,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 has never refused to maintain the petitioner and is still ready and willing to do so as a matter of filial responsibility.

5. It is also contended that the present litigation is driven by familial disputes, particularly the jealousy of the petitioner’s other sons, arrayed as proforma respondents before the Maintenance Tribunal and also before this Court. It is submitted that any grievance regarding the transfer deed should have been raised comprehensively, not in piecemeal fashion.

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, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if