Gurmail Singh vs Appellant Tribunal-Cum-District Magistrate, Sangrur And Ors

Kuldeep Tiwari, J

The present writ petition assails the order dated 18.11.2020, whereby the Appellate Tribunal, Sangrur, allowed the statutory appeal preferred by respondents No.3 and 4 against the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhuri. By virtue of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal restored Transfer Deed No.2497 dated 30.12.2015 and held respondent No.3 to be the rightful owner of the land comprised therein. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal directed that an entry be made in the revenue record to the effect that the property (supra) shall not be alienated in any manner until respondent No.3 attains the age of majority.

Succinctly stated, the petitioner had one son namely Amrik Singh, and four daughters. Amrik Singh was married to respondent No.4, Ramandeep Kaur, and their wedlock was blessed with a son, respondent No.3, Sahibdeep Singh. Unfortunately, Amrik Singh passed away in an accident. Following his demise, respondent No.4 assured the petitioner that she would not remarry and would continue to reside with him to look after both the petitioner and her minor son. Relying upon such assurance, the petitioner executed Transfer Deed No.2497 dated 30.12.2015, transferring 12 Kanals of land in favour of his minor grandson/respondent No.3, and also transferred 3.5 Kanals of land in favour of his daughter-in-law/respondent No.4 through a separate transfer deed. Subsequently, respondent No.4 remarried one Jasvir Singh and began residing with him along with respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the breach of her assurance, the petitioner instituted an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2007”), seeking cancellation of Transfer Deed No.2497 dated 30.12.2015. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 was approximately 2–3 years old at the time of filing of the said application.

Although the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhuri, cancelled the transfer deed in question by drawing the order dated 07.12.2018, the same was, upon a statutory appeal being preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4, restored by the Appellate Tribunal, Sangrur, by drawing the impugned order dated 18.11.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer deed in question was executed on the express condition that respondent No.4 would not remarry and would continue to maintain and care for the petitioner and her son. However, after the execution of the transfer deed, respondent No.4 breached her assurance by remarrying Jasvir Singh and permanently settling with him, neglecting the petitioner and failing to provide for his basic needs. It is submitted that if the transfer deed is not annulled and ownership of the property is not restored to the petitioner, the very object and purpose of the Act of 2007 would stand defeated.

Conversely, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the transfer deed in question contains no recital or stipulation imposing any condition that the transferee shall maintain or provide basic amenities to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, apart from the property recorded in the transfer deed in question, the petitioner continues to possess sufficient land and means for his sustenance. The application under Section 23 was filed merely due to the petitioner’s grievance with respondent No.4’s remarriage, which, according to the respondents, was solemnized with the petitioner’s consent and that too the real nephew of petitioner (sister’s son).

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the contesting litigants, and has also made a studied survey of the record.

On the previous date of hearing, i.e. 23.09.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to file a specific affidavit disclosing whether he owns any other land besides the one transferred under the transfer deed in question. Although no such affidavit has been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner owned approximately 23 Kanals of land, out of which 12 Kanals were transferred to respondent No.3 and 3.5 Kanals to respondent No.4. The petitioner thus remains in possession of about 7.5–8 Kanals of land.

Although copy of the application filed under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is not annexed with the writ petition, its contents stand extracted in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that none of the allegations raised by the petitioner attract the ingredients of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. The transfer deed in question was made in favour of a minor grandson, aged about 2–3 years at the relevant time, from whom no obligation of maintenance could reasonably be expected. The minor was himself dependent upon his mother and grandfather for sustenance.

Furthermore, there is no wrangle, rather it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer deed in question contains no recital indicating that the transfer was conditional upon the transferee maintaining or providing basic amenities to the transferor. From the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the transfer was not executed subject to any condition envisaged under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. No prudent person could reasonably infer that a transfer in favour of a minor child was executed with the expectation that such minor would maintain the transferor.

In view of the foregoing, it appears that the petitioner’s grievance primarily stems from the remarriage of his daughter-in-law, respondent No.4. However, such grievance does not furnish a valid ground to the petitioner to invoke Section 23 of the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the transfer deed executed in favour of his minor grandson. Moreover, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the respondent No.4 has remarried a close relative of the petitioner, and hence it appears that the remarriage was performed with the consent of the petitioner. Although this aspect may be immaterial to examine the legality of the impugned order, it reinforces the finding that the petitioner’s allegations do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

In summa, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sangrur. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed, and the impugned order is affirmed.

Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.