IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 Dimple and others …Petitioners Versus Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Rewari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The legality of order(s) dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Maintenance Tribunal, Rewari, and the order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Rewari, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’), have been put to challenge, by filing the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

2. Learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, through its verdict dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), had set aside the transfer deeds No.576 and 577 dated 25.03.2015, invoking mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners did not yield any fruit, and the same was also dismissed, vide order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-3). SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in an attempt to throw a challenge to the legality of orders (supra), has drawn the attention of this Court towards Exhibit R-1, which is the transfer deed, to submits that the said transfer was given effect to, in lieu of a family settlement. Secondly, he submits that at the time of transfer, the petitioners No.1 and 2, were of four and eight years of age, respectively, and therefore, there cannot be any possibility of presumptions in the favour of senior citizen, that she had executed the transfer deed with the condition of being maintained by the minor children, who were themselves dependent upon their mother/petitioner No.3. He further submits that all these aspects have not been appreciated in its right perspective, rather a mechanical order has been passed by learned Tribunal concerned, invoking the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Finally, he submits that there is no recital of any condition in the transfer deed, requiring the learned Tribunal concerned, to invoke the provisions of Section

23 of the Act of 2007, to conclude that the said transfer was a result of fraud.

4. Furthermore, as per the instructions, both the decrees were never challenged, and thus, have now attained finality. Finally, he submitted that there was no condition whatsoever mentioned in the transfer deed, that the said transfer was subject to the condition of maintaining the senior citizen. In the absence of any evidence, mere pleadings ought not to have been given weight by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned. Therefore, the impugned award suffers from illegality and requires interference of this Court.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/senior citizen strongly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the conduct of petitioner No.3, who is mother of petitioners No.1 and 2, needs to be examined before this Court, to test the legality of impugned order(s). He further submits that the sale deed was executed by the senior citizen. However, the sale consideration was not transferred in her account rather it was transferred in the account of mother of petitioner No.3, who by co-incident, was having the same name. Finally, he submits that petitioners No.1 and 2, minor grand children, post the transfer deed, did not serve the senior citizen and therefore, learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly cancelled the transfer deed.

6. No other arguments were raised by learned counsel for the respondent No.3, before this Court.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has