CWP-27156-2022 [208] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27156-2022 Date of Decision : 13.10.2025 Charanjit Singh and another …Petitioners versus Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Appellate Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

[1] Respondent No.3, a senior citizen aged about 87 years, filed an application/representation before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, praying for cancellation of the transfer deed executed by him in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.4. The Maintenance Tribunal, instead of cancelling the transfer deed, allowed the application only to the extent of directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- by the petitioners and respondent No.4, vide order dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure P-4).

[2] Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Maintenance Tribunal, respondent No.3, preferred a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The RAJNEESH SHARMAsaid appeal was allowed, and the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P-6), set aside Vasika No.1352 and Vasika No.1353 of the same date. The petitioners, being beneficiaries of the aforesaid transfer deeds, have now assailed the order dated 20.05.2022 by way of the present petition.

[3] Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the transfer deed (Annexure P-1), and the sale deed (Annexure P-2) to submit that, Annexure P-2 is a sale deed executed for a sale consideration of ₹6,00,000/-, and therefore, the same cannot be made the subject-matter of adjudication before the learned Maintenance Tribunal. He further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1, which is a transfer deed, and submits that the said deed does not contain any condition requiring the transferee to maintain the senior citizen, or to provide him with necessary amenities and needs.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to the application preferred by the senior citizen before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, to submit that the grounds on which cancellation of the transfer deed was sought, on the allegation of concealment and fraud, which does not falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is now contended that if the senior citizen was of the belief that the transfer was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the appropriate course of action would have been to avail other legal remedies, as available to him under the law.

[5] To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds of appeal, wherein, the senior citizen had pleaded that he never executed any sale deed

2025.11.10 16:25 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, nor any transfer deed in favour of respondent No.1. It was further alleged that the said documents were prepared fraudulently, and are the result of fabrication.

[6] Learned counsel for the petitioners in addition submits that the learned Appellate Authority, committed a factual error in observing that the petitioners were not paying the maintenance amount regularly, to which he draws the attention of this Court towards Annexure P-7, i.e. photocopies of bank receipts, evidencing deposit of the maintenance amount in the bank account of the senior citizen.

[7] On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3–senior citizen, submits that the petitioners have never paid the maintenance amount as fixed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly passed the order of cancelling