Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34640 (PNJ)

BALWANT SINGH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

CWP/23046/2026 · 2026-07-27

Kirti Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 BALWANT SINGH ... Petitioner VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, affirming the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Mukerian, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking cancellation of Transfer Deed No.1915 dated 21.10.2011 was dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Tribunals concerned have erred in dismissing the petition merely on the ground that the transfer deed does not contain an express stipulation SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 08:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) -2- requiring respondent No.3 to maintain the petitioner. It is contended that the transfer in favour of the petitioner's grandson was with an implied understanding that he would look after the petitioner in his old age. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence; and that the authorities concerned have failed to appreciate the beneficial object of the Act as well as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this Court. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4) The principal question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the pleadings contained in the application satisfy the requirements for invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. For ready reference, the said provision is extracted below:- "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 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. (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 (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5." 5) The scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 has been authoritatively explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another, Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 08:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) -3- decided on 06.12.2022, wherein it has been held that the existence of a condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor-senior citizen is a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- “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 existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 14. Careful perusal of the petition under 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 22 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.” 6) The learned Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the pleadings of both sides, recorded a categorical finding that the transfer deed dated 21.10.2011 reflected a voluntary transfer of the property by the petitioner in favour of his grandson, without any covenant, condition or stipulation obligating the transferee to provide maintenance or basic amenities to the petitioner. It was further observed that no material had been brought on record to establish that the respondent No.3 had attempted to dispossess the petitioner or had failed to maintain him so as to attract the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The Tribunal further noticed that the petitioner is an educated person, is drawing pension after retirement from service and had SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 08:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) -4- consciously executed the transfer deed after due deliberation. On the aforesaid premises, the application was dismissed. 7) The Appellate Tribunal re-appreciated the entire matter, considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties as well as the precedents cited before it, and found no infirmity in the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 8) It is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by a Maintenance/Appellate Tribunal, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. Interference is warranted only where the findings recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal, are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned orders. The findings returned by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, which were subsequently rightly affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, are founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and are neither arbitrary nor perverse. No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. 9) Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 08:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23046-2026 (O&M) -5- 10) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 08:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document