IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.02.2026 Bhavesh and another …Petitioners Versus Chairman, Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners No.1 and 2, who are grand-son and son of respondent No.3/senior citizen, respectively, has knocked the door of this Court, wherethrough, they have challenged the legality of order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Bhiwani (respondent No.2), and order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by learned Appellate Authority-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani (respondent No.1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in an attempt to throw challenge to the orders (supra), submits that none of the transfer deeds carries any condition of maintenance, entitling the senior citizen (respondent No.3), to invoke the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’). He further submits that though in the application, it was mentioned that the transfer was subject to the condition of maintaining the senior citizen. However, no evidence was led by the petitioners to prove the said assertion, and therefore, in the absence of any recital in the transfer deed, and further, in absence of any evidence led before the learned Tribunal concerned, it has erroneously invoked the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. He also submits that in fact, respondent No.3, in a family transfer, has equally transferred the property in the name of his three sons, and in the case of the petitioners, it is not the son, rather it is the grand-son, with the consent of the petitioner No.2. Finally, he submits that the other two brothers, were not satisfied with the said family transfer, and in order to settle the family property dispute, through the senior citizen (respondent No.3), the instant application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, has been filed, which is nothing but a misuse of provisions of the Act of 2007.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has strongly opposed the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted before this Court that though there is no recital of any condition in the transfer deed, but there are specific pleadings in the application that this transfer was subject to the condition of maintaining the senior citizen. He further submits that in the instant case, when the entire land of respondent No.3/senior citizen, has been transferred in favour of the sons and the grand-son, then the natural presumption arises that senior citizen is expected at least maintenance from the transferee, therefore, on the basis of presumption, learned Tribunal has rightly invoked the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. He also submits that the senior citizen cannot be left at the mercy of the petitioners and the other two sons, who post transfer of the land, stopped maintaining him. Therefore, in order to achieve the desired object of the Act of 2007, the orders impugned have rightly been passed in favour of the senior citizen (respondent No.3).

4. This Court has considered the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also gone through the orders (supra), and the available record.

5. It is apparent from the study survey of the transfer deed that it does not carry any condition of maintaining the senior citizen, or to cater his basic needs. However, in the application filed before the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, it was specifically pleaded that the said transfer was subject to the condition of maintaining the senior citizen.

6. This Court has examined the orders (supra), and a specific query was put to