IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 01, 2025 Gurdev Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal envisaged under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘2007 Act’) dated 19.11.2024 9 (Annexure P-7) by which, the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) has been set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the senior citizen had raised a claim under 2007 Act for the cancellation of Vasika No.4986 dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the senior citizen was not being maintained and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal vide it’s order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) came to the conclusion that as the senior citizen has not been maintained at the hands of the respondent No.4-son and therefore, the Vasika No.4986 dated 14.11.2017 was set aside but in the appeal filed by the son against the said order, the said order was set aside by the Appellate Authority as to restore the property in question to the son, which is arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal vide it’s order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) that the senior citizen was not being maintained, the same could not have been upset by the Appellate Court and that too without giving any valid reason, which has actually been done while passing the impugned order hence, it is the prayer of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.011.2024 (Annexure P-7) be set aside so as to revive the order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-2).

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

5. Is is worthwhile to notice that the purpose of enacting the 2007 Act was to ensure that the senior citizens are being maintained properly in case they are not capable of maintaining themselves. The children of the senior citizen by way of this act have been casted upon with the duty to maintain the senior citizen. Further, in case the senior citizen has given his/her property to the children with the condition that the children will maintain them and in case, they do not maintain the senior citizen, liberty has been given to the senior citizen to get the said transfer deed to be deemed as a fraud under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.

6. Lately, it has been seen that 2007 Act is being used to settle the property disputes between the family. After the transfer of the land in favour of particular child, the other children of the senior citizen come into picture so as to get the property back on one pretext or the other by using the senior citizen as a means to invoke the jurisdiction under 2007 Act.

Such is the present case. The senior citizen had transferred the property in question in favour of all his children including respondent No.4 in the present petition. There was no such condition imposed in the transfer deed (Annexure P-1) that the children will have to maintain the senior citizen. An application was filed by the senior citizen i.e. the petitioner No.1 for setting aside the transfer deed being Vasika No.4986 dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-1).

7. The reason given for filing the application so as to claim the property back was that the senior citizen is not being maintained. It may be noticed that the senior citizen had given the property to the other children also but no such claim was raised against them. Once, the claim was not raised against the other children, to whom the property was transferred by the senior citizen, raising the claim only against respondent No.4 shows the intent with which claim was putforth, that it was