Babli Rani vs District Magistrate, Rohtak And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 476 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babli Rani vs District Magistrate, Rohtak And Ors on 21 January, 2026

CWP-14855
     4855-2022                                                                   1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(210)                                            CWP-14855-2022
                                                 Date of Decision : 21.01.2026

Babli Rani                                                      ...Petitioner

                                      Versus

District Magistrate, Rohtak and others                          ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate and
             Mr. Davinder Kaliraman, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate
             for LRs of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4.

                 ****

KULDEEP TIWARI,
        TIWARI J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, who is daughter daughter-in-law law of respondents No.3 and 4

(since deceased), has knocked the door of this Court, by filing instant writ

petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough,

the legality of order dated 24.02.2021 24.02.2021 (Annexure P P-6),

6), passed by the learned

Maintenance Tribunal concerned, and the order dated 24.06.2022

(Annexure P-8), P 8), passed by the learned Appellate Authority concerned,

wherethrough, the application dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P P-5), preferred d by

the respondents No.3 and 4, seeking cancellation of transfer deed, in question

was allowed and the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was

dismissed.

FACTS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while opening his arguments, arguments

has drawn the attention of this Court towards the contents of application dated

1 of 11

CWP-14855

23.08.2018 (Annexure P-5), P as filed iled under Section 23 of Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007')

to submit that the allegation alleg as alleged therein, does not carry any ingredients

of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, to bestow jurisdiction upon learned

Maintenance Tribunal concerned, to cancel the transfer deed in question. He

further submits that on an earlier occasion as well well, the brother-in-law law (brother

of the husband of the present petitioner), contested the legality of the transfer

deed/gift deed, by filing a civil suit before the learned Civil Court concerned.

In the said civil suit, Hawa Singh (Respondent No.3) stepped into the witness

box and deposed in favour of the transfer deed and categorically submitted

that he, being the owner of the land and competent to transfer the deed, had

executed the same voluntarily.

voluntarily. He also submits that the legality of transfer

deed was evaluated evaluated by learned Civil Court concerned, and civil suit preferred

by the brother-in-law, brother law, who is now representing respondents No.3 and 4 as

their LR, was dismissed. The statutory appeal preferred against the decree

passed by the learned Civil Court concerned, before First Appellate Court,

was also dismissed. Furthermore, as per the instructions, both the decrees were

never challenged, challenged and thus, attained finality. Finally, he submitted that there

was no condition whatsoever mentioned in the transfer deed deed, that transfer was

subject to the condition of maintaining senior citizen. However, despite taking

this plea in the application (supra), no efforts were made to prove this by

leading any cogent evidence, and 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.

2 of 11

CWP-14855

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE LRS OF RESPONDENTS

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for LRs of respondents

No.3 and 4, has put a fierce f defence to the submissions as made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, petitioner and submits that it is not necessary that the transfer

deed carries a condition of maintenance, maintenance, rath rather this fact can be alleged by

filing an application and same can be proved before the learned Maintenance

Tribunal concerned. For this he places reliance upon the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in CWP-5086-2016, CWP 2016, decided on 03.05.2018, titled

'Smt. Raksha Devi versus Deputy Commissioner Commissioner-cum-District District Magistrate,

Hoshiarpur and others' 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 218 218; Apex Court judgment in

Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, titled 'Urmila Dixit

versus Sunil Sharan Dixit and others' 2025 (2) SCC 787, and Division

Bench judgments of Madras High Court, titled 'S. Mala versus District

Arbitrator and District Collector and others' 2025(2) MLJ 530;

'K. Yoganand versus The District Collector of Kancheepuram and others'

decided on 02.04.2025,, and Single Bench judgment of Madras High Court

titled 'Mohamed Dayan versus The District Collector and others' 2023 SCC

Online Mad 6079.

4. He further developed his arguments to the effect that the decree

as passed by the learned Civil Court concerned, does not debar a senior citizen

to invoke the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, in case condition of

transfer is violated by transferee. He, in addition, submitted that contentions contention

made in Paragraph No.4 of the application (supra), wh wherethrough, erethrough, the

allegation of fraud has been levelled for execution of transfer deed, may not be

read rather only the contents of Paragraph No.6, is to be considered to

evaluate the legality of the application (supra). Finally, he submits that in the

3 of 11

CWP-14855

transfer fer deed, it is specifically mentioned that the deed in question was

executed out of love and affection. And in Paragraph No.6 of the application

(supra), it is specifically mentioned that post the execution of the transfer

deed, the petitioner refused to maintain the senior citizen.

ANALYSIS

5. Before this court embark upon the arguments made by learned

counsel sel for the petitioner, and counsel appearing on behalf of LRs of

respondents No.3 and 4, it is important to have a glimpse upon some facts,

qua which there is no wrangle amongst the parties concerned.

6. The respondent No.3-Hawa Hawa Singh (since deceased) executed a

transfer deed in favour of the present petitioner, on 29.04.2011, and

respondent No.3, No.3 and his wife respondent No.4, both preferred aan n application

under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, on 23.08.2018, i.e. 07 years after the

execution of transfer deed. It is also not disputed that in the said time period,

the brother-in in-law, law, who is now representing the senior citizens being their LR,

has already contested legality of the transfer deed by filing a civil suit, which

was dismissed by learned Civil Court concerned concerned,, and the decree passed by

learned Civil Court, has now attained finality.

7. It is also not disputed that Hawa Singh (respondent No.3) stepped

into the witness box before Civil Court, and deposed in favour of the transfer

deed and categorically submitted that it was suffered out of sheer will will,, and

without any coercion.

8. No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the senior citizen, to o prove

said allegation.

allegation. The learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, proceeded to

cancel the transfer deed vide order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P P-6), only on

the basis of the contents of the application dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P P--5),

4 of 11

CWP-14855

to the effect that the petitioner has failed to maintain the senior citizen post

execution of the transfer deed. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner

was also dismissed. However, the same was dismissed in the most perfunctory

manner.

9. At this juncture, this Court feels apt to have glimpse upon the

relevant contents of the application dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P P--5),

preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4, which became the basis for the

learned Maintenance Tribunal and the learned Appellate Authority concerned, concerne

to adjudicate the claim of the senior citizens. The relevant is extracted

hereinafter :-

:

"3.

3. That all the three sons of applicants are married. The applicants used to resided in their ancestral house at Village Kultana with respondent No.3 and 4. The respondent spondent No.1 and 2 are residing in their own self acquired house at Sampla.

4. That applicant No.1 fell seriously ill in April 2011 and when he was ill and then respondent No.3 had taken applicant to the Tehsil Sampla, on the pretext of making will but he got executed fraudulently gift deed in favour of his wife (respondent No.4) of my ancestral agricultural land in Khewat No. 14 Khatoni No.15, Kitte 23 total land 62 Bigha 8 Biswa, wherein my share is 1/9th measuring land 6 Bighe 18 Biswa. He even did not call his wife respondent No.4 in Tehsil so that applicant No.1 may not get suspicious. He told lie that the will is being made in favour of all the three respondents. In this way, respondent No.3 while telling lie to applicant NO.1 that the Will is being made ade in favour of responden respondents No.1 to 3 and he procured gift deed in favour of respondent No.4.

5. That the above said agricultural land in ancestral land of applicant No.1 and which all his three sons are entitled

5 of 11

CWP-14855

to get after his death, but respondent No. No.3 3 and 4 got executed gift deed from applicant No. 1 fraudulently.

6. That respondent No.3 and 4 started harassing the applicants and started beating them. They stopped providing meals in time. This is going on from 2012 and in 2018 they have snatched Rs.4 Lac and household articles and refused to get treatment for applicants. In the end, they ousted the applicants from the house which was even purchased by applicant No. 1. The applicants have been left as beggars. The respondent No.3 is a strong headed persons and anti-social social elements are there in his company and thus he has grabbed the whole property of the applicants. He threatened to eliminate if action is taken against him."

10. A collective reading of the above relevant paragraphs makes it

clear that the senior citizens alleged that the transfer deed is a result of fraud.

Neither before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, nor learned Appellate Court

concerned, did the senior citizens maintains that the transfer deed was made

out of love and affection. In order to better appreciate whether the application

(supra), attracts the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, let us have a

glimpse of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

"23.

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such uch transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tr Tribunal.

6 of 11

CWP-14855

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the or organisation ganisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section section (1) of section 5."

11. Sub-clause (1) of Section 23 of the A Act of 2007, creates a legal

fiction and empowers the learned Tribunal ribunal concerned, to presume that the

transfer is the result of fraud, coercion coercion or undue influence, in case case, the transfer

is made subject to the condition that the transfer transferee shall provide the basic

amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, and post the execution of

the transfer deed, the transferee transfer fails to keep the promise.

12. Two ingredients, which are essential to be established by leading

the cogent evidence. First, that the transfer was subject to the condition that

the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs;

second, post the transfer transfer of execution of the transfer deed, the transferee failed

to provide the basic amenities and physical needs.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled 'Sudesh Sudesh Chhikara vs.

Ramti Devi and another, Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, ddecided ecided on

06.12.2022, has held that, to attract the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of

2007, the condition of providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to

transferor-senior senior citizen is sine qua non for its applicability. The relevant

paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

hereun

7 of 11

CWP-14855

"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 ery 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-

sub section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.

14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition wa wass fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section section (1) of Section 23.. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition."

14. Similar observations were made by a Co Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this

Court, in case titled tit 'Tilak Tilak Raj vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others',

CWP-414-2025, 2025, decided d on 13.01.2025, wherein, after considering the ratio

laid down in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) (supra),, it was held that the condition

requiring the transferee to maintain the senior citizen by providing basic

8 of 11

CWP-14855

amenities and physical needs must not only be expressly stipulated in the

transfer deed, but must also be specifically pleaded before the learned

Tribunal ibunal concerned, in order to establish a breach thereof. It is only upon

fulfillment of these conditions that the relief under Section 23 of the Act of

2007, can be granted. The relevant observations of the Co Co-ordinate ordinate Bench are

extracted hereinbelow:

"12.. A bare perusal of the above paragraphs of the judgment in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) makes it clear that not only the condition that the senior citizen will be maintained by the transferee qua his basic amenities and basic physical needs must be there in thee document concerned but, the said part needs to be pleaded before the Tribunal also so as to prove the violation of the said condition and it is only under that circumstances, the relief can be granted. In the absence of the condition that the transferee is liable to maintain the senior citizen in the deed sought to be recalled, the requirement of Section 23 of the 2007 Act are not fulfilled and the interpretation being given by the petitioner to the paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment cannot be accepted.

13. Even otherwise, on being asked to read from the pleadings as to what basic amenities and the basic physical needs were demanded by the petitioner before the Tribunal and how they were proved, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show ow that any such factual averment was made or any evidence was brought on record with regard to any basic amenities or the physical needs of the petitioner, not being fulfilled by the respondent. Hence, even if the interpretation being given by the petitio petitioner ner is accepted for the sake of argument, then also, the requirements of the judgment in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) are not fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

15. The legality of the hereinabove expressed observations was tested

by y the aggrieved by filing LPA No.1012 of 2025. However, the same were

affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated

9 of 11

CWP-14855

09.05.2025. The relevant paragraphs of this order are extracted hereunder:

hereunder:-

"10. A perusal of the said judgment in indicates dicates that transfer must be made subject to the condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and only then if the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities or physical needs to the transfe transferor ror Section 23 (1) of the 2007 Act can be brought into motion. Only if both the conditions are satisfied by a legal fiction, then transfer shall be deemed to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidab voidable le at the instance of transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to declare the transfer void.

11. It was further observed in Sudesh Chhikara's case (supra) that when a petition under Section 23 of the 2007 Act does not reveal that the deed was executed subject to the obligation of maintenance stipulated under Section 23 of the 2007 Act and no such finding is recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal or no oral evidence is adduced by the parties, then the order of the Tribunal could not be held to be maintainable."

16. Per se at the cost of repetition, the transfer deed in question

contains no recital obligating the petitioner to provide the basis amenities and

basis physical needs to the respondent No.3/senior citizen. Moreover, the

application preferred by the senior citizen citizen,, before the learned Maintenance

Tribunal concerned, does not carry any of the ingredients, requiring to invoke

the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

17. On the anvil of the above legal propositions and settled law, this

Court finds that the application application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, does not

carry any ingredients giving jurisdiction to the learned Maintenance Tribunal

concerned, to invoke the provisions of Section 23 of the ibid Act. Neither, it is

alleged, nor proved by leading any cogent evidence that the transfer deed was

executed out of love and affection, affection and with a condition that the beneficiary

10 of 11

CWP-14855

will maintain the senior citizens. This Court has no hesitation in recording that

not mentioning of this condition of maintenance in the tran transfer sfer deed would not

fetter the case of the senior citizen provided existence of such condition is

alleged in the application and proved by leading evidence to this effect.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done. It seems that the property dispute

amongst the parties concerned, is sought to be settled by invoking the

provision of the Act of 2007. It is now a common phenomenon that the

provisions of the Act of 2007, are being misused only for this purpose and this

practice cannot be appreciated, at all.

18. In summa, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, and accordingly, the instant writ petition is

allowed.. The impugned order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P P-6),

6), passed by the

learned Maintenance Tribunal, and tthe he order dated 24.06.2022

(Annexure P-8), P 8), passed by the learned Appellate Authority concerned, are

ordered to be set aside, and the transfer deed is ordered to be restored to its

original status.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

January 21, 2026 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

11 of 11