CWP-22393-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CWP-22393-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 KRISHNA PAVYAL ......Petitioners Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JALANDHAR AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Shreya Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside the order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum- Appellate Tribunal, Jalandhar-respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Jalandhar-respondent no.2, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act for declaring the transfer deed dated 02.09.2008 as void, was upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband, late Sh. Madan Lal, had purchased the house in question in the year 2003. It is contended that, at the time of execution of the transfer deed dated 02.09.2008, he was suffering from serious physical and mental RITIKA 2026.07.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22393-2026 -2- ailments. Taking undue advantage of his physical and mental condition, respondent No. 3 allegedly got the transfer deed executed in her favour by fraud and undue influence, without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. It is submitted that after the petitioner’s husband passed away, respondent No.3 failed to maintain her or provide her with basic amenities. Rather, she even sold off the said property. It was therefore that an application seeking cancellation of the transfer deed and the subsequent sale deed was moved by the petitioner. However, the learned Maintenance Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim of the petitioner, which error was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that both the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to lead evidence and the matter was decided without appreciating the material facts and the scope & Legislative intent of Section 23 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion to the official respondents No.1 & 2-State only at this stage. 4. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab waives service of notice on behalf of the official respondents No.1 & 2-State. She submits that the impugned order(s) was rightly passed after due appreciation of the facts and the material on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and perused the judicial record with their able assistance. 6. Before proceeding further with the matter, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RITIKA 2026.07.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22393-2026 -3- Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 226, wherein proving of non-maintenance by the senior citizen is essential in order to get relief under Section 23 of the 2007 Act. Relevant paragraphs No.13 & 14 of the judgment are as under:- “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. 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 was 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 (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.” 7. It is reflective from the case record that the learned Maintenance Tribunal, while passing the order dated 27.02.2023, recorded a finding that the transfer deed in question had been executed by late Sh. Madan Lal, husband of the petitioner, in favour of respondent No.3. It was further observed that late Sh. Madan Lal, being the owner and executant of the transfer deed, had never challenged the same during his lifetime. Since the petitioner was neither the executant nor the transferor of the property, the Tribunal held that she had no locus standi to seek cancellation of the transfer deed under Section 23 of the Act. The learned Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, also held that the petitioner was neither the owner of RITIKA 2026.07.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22393-2026 -4- the property nor a party to the execution of the transfer deed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings recorded by both the authorities are based on the material available on record and do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 9. Accordingly, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 22, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.27 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh