IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 14.01.2025 Balveer Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Naveen Singh Parmar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Appellate Authority under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘ 2007 Act’) by which, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P/3) has been set aside and further direction has been given that the transfer deed No.567 dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) in favour of the petitioners executed by respondent No.3-father shall also be stand cancelled.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioners have only got approximately two acres of land and they have never refused to take care of respondent No.3-father.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the other siblings of the petitioners as the respondent No.3-father has six sons, are instigating the father now to reconsider his decision to transfer the land in favour of the petitioners so that they can avail the benefit of transfer of the said land in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction under the 2007 Act has already decided that both the petitioners along with respondent No.4 will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ per annum to father-respondent No.3, the said finding could not have been overturned by using the discretion especially, when there was no perversity in the said order.

4. Learned counsel for father-respondent No.3 submits that the sons were bound to take care of their father-respondent No.3 and they failed to discharge the said duty, the land transferred in favour of the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 has rightly been cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not been able to deny that petitioners as well as respondent No.4 were complying with the direction given by the Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, but same is not being accepted by father-

respondent No.3.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. The prime contention of respondent No.3 is that he is not being taken care of and the Tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that interest of respondent No.3 will be best served by giving him a sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum by petitioners as well as respondent No.4

8. The findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal can only be set aside in case, the same are perverse to any evidence. Merely that respondent No.3 subsequently refused to accept the maintenance money, cannot be a ground to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order keeping in view the facts and circumstances presented before the Tribunal.

9. Even otherwise, from the facts, it transpires that subsequent to the transfer of land in favour of petitioners as well as respondent No.4, the other sons of the respondent No.3. raised a claim qua the said land hence the filing of application under Section 23 of the 2007 Act is only to reconsider the transfer by taking shelter behind the plea that respondent No.3 is not being taken care of. Once, the Tribunal ensured that the petitioners will take care of respondent No.3 by paying yearly financial assistance, the Appellate Court has wrongly set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

10. Further, the requirement of Section 23 of the 2007 Act is required to be proved in case of non-extending of basic amenities and physical needs as being sought by the senior citizen so as to claim the cancellat