##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 CWP-10150-2026 Date of Decision : April 07, 2026

SURENDER ALIAS SURESH -PETITIONER

V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL, GURGAON AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sawariya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner, a senior citizen, challenges the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.2- Maintenance Tribunal, whereby his application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) was dismissed. Further, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.1- Appellate Tribunal, whereby his statutory appeal under Section 16 of

the Act of 2007 was likewise dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, subsequent to the execution of the release deeds in question, the transferee/respondent No.3 refused to provide maintenance or basic amenities to the transferor/ petitioner and his wife. It is submitted that all ingredients requisite for invoking Section 23 of the Act of 2007 were present, yet the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately. It is further submitted that once it is

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.10 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-10150-2026 2 established that the respondent No.3 refused to maintain or provide basic necessities to the petitioner, such refusal triggers the deeming provision under Section 23(1), presuming the deeds resulted from fraud or

misrepresentation.

3. No other arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

4. Before embarking upon the process of gauging the merits of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the legality of the impugned orders, it is deemed imperative to initially

capture a concise factual backdrop of the case.

5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 23 before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking a declaration that Release Deed No.7888 dated 31.03.2006 and Release Deed No.3569 dated 09.12.2010, executed in favour of his brother (respondent No.3), are illegal, null and void. The petitioner contended that he executed the release deeds based on the oral assurance of the respondent No.3 to provide maintenance and basic physical needs to him and his wife in old age. However, post execution, the

respondent No.3 failed to fulfill this assurance.

6. The application was contested by the respondent No.3 and he brought on record certain additional facts. It was submitted that Release Deed No.7888 dated 31.03.2006 was executed in favour of the respondent No.3 not solely by the petitioner, but also by his sister, Jai Mala, as a co- executant. Similarly, Release Deed No.3569 dated 09.12.2010 was executed jointly by the petitioner and his sister in favour of both respondent No.3 and another brother, Rakesh Kumar, who was not impleaded as a party in the

application. It was further submitted that the petitioner has three children, DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.10 09:43

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-10150-2026 3 who had previously assailed the legality of the release deeds by filing Civil Suit No.73 of 2015 in collusion with the petitioner, who not only made a statement on 10.11.2017 before the civil court indicating “No Objection” regarding status quo, but also opted to proceed ex parte in the proceedings. Despite these efforts, the civil suit was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2023. The dismissal of the civil suit thus formed the foundation for the filing of the application under Section 23. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not even a senior citizen at the time of executing the release

deeds, being 53 and 57 years old, respectively.

7. Considering th