IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (101+205) CM-6309-CWP-2025 in/and Date of Decision : July 03, 2025 Jaspal Kaur .. Petitioner Versus District Magistrate-cum- Appellate Tribunal, Sangrur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate and Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-6309-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for preponing the date of hearing of the main writ petition i.e. CWP-5064-2019, which now stands adjourned to 01.09.2025.

Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. He raises no objection for the grant of the prayer as raised in the present application.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and hearing the main petition i.e CWP-5064-2019 is preponed from 01.09.2025 to today.

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) having endorsement dated 26.12.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority envisaged under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘2007 Act’) by which, the appeal of the respondent No.3 has been accepted and the order dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal setting aside the transfer deed dated 04.04.2011, was set aside and the respondent herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the senior citizen.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-senior citizen submits that it was a proper case where after proper adjudication of the evidence, the Tribunal vide order dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) had recorded a finding that the senior citizen was not being maintained properly at the hands of the respondent No.3 which was the condition while transferring the property in question and therefore, the requirement of Section 23 of the 2007 Act was complete and the transfer deed was set aside, which order was annuled by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) and that too without due application of mind.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen prays that the order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) may kindly be maintained.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal has passed the order setting aside the transfer deed in favour of respondent No.3 on the ground that the petitioner-senior citizen was not being maintained rather, it has already come to notice that on the asking of another daughter to whom the petitioner-senior citizen had already given property namely Rajinder Kaur, civil proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.3 for setting aside the transfer of the property, which shows that the intention is to take the property back by misusing the provisions of 2007 Act.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that as the petitioner-senior citizen did not succeed in the civil proceedings initiated against the respondent No.3, an application under 2007 Act was filed against respondent No.3 on the ground that the senior citizen was not being maintained which fact was not appreciated correctly by the Tribunal and on an appeal filed by respondent No.3 before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority after considering all the evidence and facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner-senior citizen was being maintained as required and the cancellation of the transfer deed in favour of respondent No.3 was set aside and the respondent herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and he is ready and willing to pay the said amount with arrears if any.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and ha