Kailash Chand Sharma S/O Late Shri ... vs Smt. Manoj Sharma W/O Shri Ashwini ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4843 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4876/2020
Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Valmiki Sharma, Aged
About 75 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 89, Path No. 3, Vijay Bari, 3
Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur, At Present Plot No. 41, Path No. 2,
Vijaywari, Sikar Road, Jaipur.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        Smt. Manoj Sharma W/o Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma D/o
          Kailash Chand Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 89, Path No.
          3, Vijay Bari, 3 Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur, At Present
          Working As Teacher Gr. III, Government Girls Upper
          Primary School Dattwas, Tehsil Niwai, Distt. Tonk.
2.        Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar
          Sharma, Resident Of Vill. Mavanda Khurd, Tehsil Neemka
          Thana, Distt. Sikar, At Present Resident Of Plot No. 89,
          Path No. 3, Vijay Bari, 3 Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur.
3.        District    Education         Officer,        Elementary         Education
          Department, Tonk, Distt. Tonk.
4.        Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Ajmer Division,
          Ajmer.
5.        District Collector, Jaipur.
6.        S.D.M., Amer, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Fahad Hasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Syed Shahid Hasan For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 14/07/2022

This writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 19.09.2019

passed by the Court of Collector and District Magistrate, the

learned Appellate Tribunal whereby, his Appeal No.10/2018

preferred against the judgment dated 20.02.2018 passed by the

(2 of 4) [CW-4876/2020]

Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Amer Headquarter Jaipur, the

Maintenance Tribunal rejecting his application No.14/2017, has

been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an

application under Sections, 8, 23, 24, & 25 of the Maintenance &

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for brevity, "the

Act of 2007") and the Rules 65 & 69 of the National Senior Citizen

Policy, 1999 praying therein inter-alia that the registered sale deed

dated 11.05.2009 fraudulently executed by the respondent No.1,

his daughter, in her favour. The application came be to dismissed

by the Maintenance Tribunal vide its judgment dated 20.02.2018.

The judgment was unsuccessfully challenged by the

petitioner by way of an appeal which came to be dismissed by the

learned Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 19.09.2019.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the Maintenance Tribunal had

jurisdiction under Sections 2, 3 & 4 of the Act of 2007 for

cancelling the registered sale deed dated 11.05.2009 as it was

fraudulently obtained by the respondent No.1 in her favour. He

submitted that since the petitioner never executed the sale deed

and as it was obligatory for the Maintenance Tribunal to ensure

that the petitioner, a senior citizen, gets proper care and

maintenance in his advance stage of life, it had jurisdiction to

cancell the same. He submitted that Rules 65 & 69 of the National

Senior Citizen Policy, 1999, which has been framed for proper

execution of the Act of 2007, also envisage so. He, therefore,

prayed that the writ petition be allowed, impugned judgment be

quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed

to the aforesaid extent.

                                          (3 of 4)               [CW-4876/2020]



     Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the judgment under challenge reveals that the

appeal/complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as the

Maintenance Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under the Act of

2007 to cancel a registered sale deed alleged to be fraudulent.

Under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, a Maintenance Tribunal can

held a transfer of a property to be void where a senior citizen,

after the commencement of this act, transfers 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 transferee

refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical

needs.

Indisputably, in the present case, the conditions mandatory

before a transfer of property can be held to be void, are lacking. It

has been specific case of the petitioner that he never executed the

registered sale deed dated 11.05.2009 and it was prepared

fraudulently by the respondent No.1, his daughter.

In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this

Court, the learned Appellate Tribunal did not err in rejecting the

appeal/complaint filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the

sale deed.

Contention of the learned Senior Counsel jurisdiction of the

Maintenance Tribunal for cancellation of sale deed qua Sections 2,

3 & 4 of the Act of 2007 and Clause 65 & 69 of the National Senior

Citizen Policy, 1999, is misconceived and cannot be countenanced.

Provisions contained under Sections 2, 3 & 4 of the Act of 2007

are general provisions providing for maintenance of parents and

senior citizens and in view of provisions of Section 23 of the Act of

(4 of 4) [CW-4876/2020]

2007, as already held, the petitioner was not entitled for the relief

of cancellation of registered sale deed. Similarly, Clauses 65 & 69

of the National Senior Citizen Policy, 1999 are of no assistance to

the petitioner in view of statutory provisions contained under the

Act of 2007.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/45

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)