214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.09.2025 BHAJAN KAUR ALIAS HARBAJAN KAUR ....Petitioner Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KAITHAL AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J (ORAL)

1. Petitioner, being a senior citizen, has approached this Court by way of an instant writ petition, assailing the order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), vide which, her application, preferred under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), for cancellation of release deeds No.1344 and 1345 dated 14.06.2021 (Annexures P-3 and P-4), was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts, qua which there is no dispute between the parties, are that, the petitioner, post demise of her first husband (Kashmir Singh), solemnized second marriage with his real brother, namely one Richhpal Singh. Out of this wedlock, she is blessed with three children, namely, Satnam Singh-respondent No.2, Harwinder Singh- respondent No.3, and Ramandeep Kaur. During his life time, Richhpal Singh had separated his sons, and even got them constructed their independent dwelling units, whereas, his daughter was got married in village Kawartan. Post death of Richhpal Singh, the petitioner became owner in possession of agricultural land to the extent of 15 kanal 08 Marlas, 3.5 Sarsai, out of total land measuring 70 Kanal 13 Marla. Likewise, she also inherited another chunk of the estate of her husband, measuring 16 Kanal 3 Marla, 3.5 Sarsai, besides a residential house in village Kassor. She was residing in one portion of the said house, whereas, respondent No.2 was possessing another portion of the same house, to live in with his family.

3. However, on the fateful day, i.e. 14.06.2021, respondent No.2, on the pretext of obtaining signatures, so as to raise a loan to buy a combine machine, took the petitioner to Tehsil office, Guhla. Similarly, her daughter (Ramandeep Kaur) also reached there, for the same purpose. Thereafter, thumb impressions of the petitioner, and signatures of her daughter were obtained on the release deed, contents of which, were never revealed to them. Till now, the petitioner could not understand the foul plot being weaved by respondent No.2, to grab her property. But, eventually, when the petitioner got to know about the fraud being played upon her, respondent No.1, along with Harjeet Singh Namberdar, and Ranpal Singh, revealed that actually, the signatures were obtained to execute a release deed, thereby transferring her share of land in favour of respondents No.2, and also 3, who is currently residing in Germany. At that stage, respondent No.2, assured her that he would maintain her well, and also got the mutation sanctioned in his favour, but he started maltreating her. Thereafter, on 28.07.2022, she was beaten by respondent No.2, and ultimately, was thrown out of her residential house. Having been left with no other option, she took shelter in a Gurudwara for some days, and thereafter, Ramandeep Kaur took the petitioner to live with her, where she is residing presently.

4. Finally, the petitioner took the plunge, and preferred an application (supra), for cancellation of the release deeds in question. After analysing the matter in issue, the learned Appellate Tribunal, though, denied the asked for relief, i.e. cancellation the release deed (supra), but directed respondents No.2 and 3, to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- each, (Rs.10,000/-) every month, to the petitioner, as maintenance charges, enabling her to live peacefully. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in an endeavor to throw challenge to the order impugned, submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal ought to have cancelled the release deed