JUDGMENT :

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

1. challenging order dated September 13, 2019 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in Maintenance Tribunal Case No.11 of 2018, present revisional application has been preferred.

2. The petitioner’s case gist is that the opposite party along with her late husband, namely, Prabir Chandra Mondal being the parents of the petitioner herein in consideration of the natural love and affection which they bear towards the petitioner, have jointly executed a registered deed of gift dated July 7, 2011 and thereby transferred their respective shares into different plots of land under two different moujas total measuring about 1.09 acres and 18 chittak in favour of the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner mutated his name in the record of rights and paying the revenue thereof. Thereafter, all of a sudden, parents of the petitioner approached the Maintenance Tribunal at Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur and preferred an application, alleging thereby that the petitioner after procuring the said deed of gift has failed to provide the basic amenities and the necessary physical needs as required by them and inter alia prayed for a monthly allowance to the tune of Rs.3000/-for the opposite party/mother and Rs.6000/-towards the father of the petitioner and revocation of the said deed of gift dated July 7, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007, (hereinafter called as Act of 2007). During pendency of the said proceeding, the father of the petitioner being one of the applicants before the Maintenance Tribunal, expired on January 5, 2019.

4. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application under the said Act is collusive in nature. He further submits that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that it is settled principle of law that a deed should be construed as it is and nothing could be added or substracted on it. He further submits that the learned tribunal erred in observing that it is not the legislative requirement or intent that the document evidencing the transfer either by gift or otherwise should contain express condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical need of the transferor. Learned tribunal further erred in holding that after execution of said gift deed the petitioner did not take care or maintain the opposite party to her expectation and as such the petitioner committed fraud in getting the gift deed.

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that petitioner always supported his parents financially and provided them with all basic amenities and their physical needs to the best of his ability. He further submits that under section 126 of the transfer of property Act the gift may be suspended or revoked under three conditions namely when donor or donee mutually agreed to cancel the gift, when donee fails to accept the gift and when condition of the gift are rescinded. Similarly, to a contract, the gift can be made subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and failure to comply those conditions result in cancellation of gift as if gift was obtained by fraud. Here the gift is unconditional. The order impugned has been passed without any application of mind and is clearly without jurisdiction. It should have been considered by the Tribunal that the deed of gift dated 7th July 2011, was executed by the opposite party herein along with her deceased husband in favour of the petitioner, out of love and affection and as a reward for the respect and care, shown by the petitioner towards his parents. No condition was attached with regard to the duty upon the petitioner to provide basic maintenance and basic physical needs to his parents and as such section 23 of the Act does not have any manner of application in this case. Accordingly the tribunal exercised jurisdiction wrongly under section 23