Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Dahiya vs Deputy Commissioner Cum Appellate ... on 9 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117857-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(127) LPA-282-2024 (O&M)
Decided on :09.09.2024
Ajit Dahiya
......Appellant
Appellant(s)
Versus
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate
Commissi Appellate Tribunal, Sonipat and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh,, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
1. Present letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of
the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.618 of 2024, whereby the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and did not interfere in the orders
passed by the SDM-cum-Deputy
SDM Commissioner, Sonipat under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short
'2007
2007 Act')
2. Counsel for the appellant very fairly at the outset stated that on
account of orders whereby the transfer deed dated 11.07.2019 in favour of the
present appellant and resultant mutation was
wascancelled, the house in question
now stands restored in the name and possession of the private respondent
No.3-Ram
Ram Narayan, father of the appellant.
3. The Appellate Authority as such noticed that the said respondent
was 87 years old and in spite of an attempt being made to resolve the dispute
amicably, the same had not been
been fructified and, therefore, did not interfere in
the orders passed by the SDM. The learned Single Judge noticed that the
transfer deed itself had contained a condition that the basic amenities was to be
provided and in the caseoffailure,
case , the respondent No.3 would have a right
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117857-DB
LPA-282-2024 (O&M) -2-
to get the property back. It was noticed that there was nothing on record that
any amount had been paid for maintenance of the parents as such, and the
counselling report shows that the father was residing with his relatives for the
last several years and the appellant has refused to keep him in the house.
Therefore, once the ingredients of Section 23 of the 2007 Act as such were
fulfilled, the orders were held to be sustainable. The attempt to further
convince the Court that the appellant is now ready to keep respondent No.3,
was held to be an afterthought, keeping in view the fact that earlier the writ
petitioner had given a statement that he was not ready to give even an inch of
the house in question to his father, in the form of one room for living.
4. The law stands settled regarding this aspect by the Apex Court in
the judgment passed in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another,
2023(1) PLR 107, wherein it has been held that any transfer deed which
contains such a condition, the Courts would have a power to cancel the same.
Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of
transfers as is clear from the use of the expression "by way
of gift or otherwise". For attracting sub-section (1) of
Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:
a. The transfer must have been made subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic
amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and
b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs to the transferor.
If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal
fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by
fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then
becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117857-DB
LPA-282-2024 (O&M) -3-
Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the
transfer as void.
13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by
executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or
her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the
senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the
contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love
and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore,
when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer,
existence of such conditions must be established before the
Tribunal."
5. Keeping in view the settled principles of law, we do not feel that
the authorities have erred in any manner and resultantly, there is no merit in
the present appeal and same is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
