IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.11578 OF 2020 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 27.05.2021

Paramjeet Singh @ Paramjit Singh

&Petitioner

versus

Rajinder Singh and others

&Respondents

CORAM : HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. H. S. Oberoi, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

(Presence marked through video conference).

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Yet another senior citizen (respondent no.1), a 93-year-old

nonagenarian this time, is pitted against his own son (the petitioner herein)

to protect his property and dignity of life. He had to invoke the Maintenance

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. Petitioner, a

sexagenarian senior citizen himself, has assailed an order dated 23.06.2020

passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, ibid, whereby Maintenance

Tribunal9s order dated 04.12.2019annulling gift deeds of 06 acres of

agricultural land (having a built up house)executed by his father in his

favour, has been upheld.

2.

Facts in brief. Respondent No. 1 moved an application before

the Maintenance Tribunal for annulment of transfer deeds of his land to his

two sons-Paramjit Singh (petitioner herein) and Harinder Singh (proforma

VANDANA

2021.06.18 07:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

respondent No.2). He alleged that after transfer of land to them, they were

not maintaining and taking care of him. Three transfer deeds all dated

18.12.2013 ( forming part of Annexure P-15) for land measuring 24 kanals

2 marlas, 2 kanals 8 marlas and 22 kanals 4 marlas in the area of village

Gokhuwal (District Gurdaspur) are in favour of the petitioner. The other

transfer deeds are in favour of the second son (proforma respondent No. 2).

The petitioner contested the application while the second son did not contest

the case. Maintenance Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 04.12.2019

(Annexure P-16), allowed the application in entirety. Petitioner9s appeal was

dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure P-14) passed by the

learned Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition

for quashing both these orders.

3.

Given their age and relationship [son 63 years and father 93

years], this Court made multiple endeavours to bring about an amicable

settlement. Being mindful that, no matter whatever the decision of this Court

on merits, the same would be perceived as adversarial and they would

continue to litigate, which would be really most unfortunate and highly

detrimental to the family. While the time is not on the side of

father/respondent no.1. However, having interacted with parties in person, I

get the impression that they are trapped in a cobweb of a serious trust deficit.

Resultantly, they are taking all their disagreements to litigation, be it civil or

criminal proceedings, instead of resolving them across the table.

4.

No doubt, either of them will win one case or the other or may

win all. But viewed differently, when it comes to bringing peace in the

family, it shall still be an absolute failure of law in the end. What the father

VANDANA

2021.06.18 07:28

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

son duo needs is not the judicial pronouncements from the court, but

intimate discussions with each other.

5.

As noted above, this Bench tried to provide a platform to the

parties with able assistance of learned counsels to have an amicable

settlement in the matter after entering into dialogue, but it turned out to be an

exercise in futility. It seems that between father and son lies an oceanful

void of disturbed past and hurt feelings. Neither of them seems to be willing

to even try and cross the stream for fear of getting drowned. Instead of going

across to reach out to each other, they would rather return halfway each

time. The only way to step on the other shore across is to hav