IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:06.02.2025 Manjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, and Mr. Nitin Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Soloman Partap Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

*****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “2007 Act”), vide which the transfer deed dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P-1) in favour of the petitioner has been set aside as well as to the order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), vide which the order passed by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that without ascertaining the facts as to whether the claim of respondent no.3-senior citizen is covered under Section 23 of the 2007 Act or not, the impugned orders have been passed setting aside the transfer deed dated 27.01.2012. Learned counsel further argues that there was no condition in the transfer deed dated 27.01.2012 that the transferee-petitioner is liable to maintain the transferor-senior citizen and further nothing has come on record as to how the petitioner was supposed to maintain the senior citizen and merely on the ground that the land was transferred by the senior citizen, order under Section 23 of the 2007 Act has been passed, which is not only contrary to the provisions of the 2007 Act but also to the settled principle of law hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3-senior citizen submits that even if the land in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner daughter-in-law without there being any condition qua 2007 Act but once, the senior citizens are not being maintained, the orders passed by the authorities under the 2007 Act are perfectly valid and legal and the transfer deed dated 27.01.2012 transferring land in favour of the petitioner at the hands of the senior citizen, has rightly been set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent- senior citizen further submits that non maintenance of the senior citizen by the petitioner has not only been pleaded but also proved hence, the orders passed by the authorities do not suffer from any illegality and are liable to be upheld.

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

5. For better understanding, Section 23 of the 2007 Act, under which the claim was raised by the senior citizen, is reproduced as under:-

“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 the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right. (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

6. A bare perusal of the above would go on to show t