Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

WPMS/2006/2023
2025 Latest Caselaw 1852 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1852 UK
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2006/2023 on 8 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
                                                                 2025:UHC:7007
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS/2006/2023
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.    Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel
                               for the petitioner.
                               2.    Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing
                               Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
                               3.    Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for
                               respondent nos. 3 & 4.

4. Petitioner is a senior citizen. He moved an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Tribunal, constituted under Section 7 of the Act, for cancellation of gift deed dated 02.08.2010 executed in favour of his son (respondent no. 3), which was dismissed. Petitioner thereafter approached learned Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal. His appeal too has been dismissed vide judgment dated 20.02.2023. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar rejected petitioner's application by holding that there was no condition in the gift deed that respondent no. 3 will provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the petitioner. Learned Appellate Tribunal concurred with the view expressed by learned Tribunal and also observed that a Civil Suit No. 145 of 2021 is pending between the parties before Civil Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, 2025:UHC:7007

District Udham Singh Nagar, regarding a passage, which respondent No. 3 claimed that it is public path constructed by Gram Panchayat out of public funds. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal, as affirmed by learned Appellate Tribunal.

7. Section 23(1) of Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is relevant to the case, is reproduced below:-

"23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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, 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 Tribunal."

8. Perusal of said provision reveals that a transfer made by a Senior Citizen can be declared to be void only if the transfer was made with 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 to the senior citizen.

9. In the present case, there was no such condition mentioned in the gift deed, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting application made by petitioner. The summary proceedings, under Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not meant to decide property or civil 2025:UHC:7007

disputes. The said Legislation was enacted for providing need based maintenance to parents and senior citizens and a gift deed executed by senior citizen can be declared void if there is violation of some condition mentioned in such gift deed. Thus, the order passed by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The appellate Tribunal was thus justified in not interfering in the matter.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, any interference with the orders, impugned in this writ petition, would be uncalled for.

11. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the civil court while deciding Original Suit No. 145 of 2021.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 08.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5853172 6FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.10 21:45:39 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7007

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter