JAGDISH KAUR Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against order dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Senior Citizens Act') has rejected the petition filed under Sections 22 and 23 of the aforementioned Act.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that two residential houses and a piece of land were transferred in favour of respondent No. 2 by the petitioners vide three separate transfer deeds dated 12.08.2014, 12.09.2014 and third deed also of 12.09.2014. House No. 76, Model Town, Karnal was one of the residential houses included in the transfer. The petitioners were residing with respondent No. 2 in the said house. Their elder son resides at Faridabad. In the year 2018, the petitioners went to Faridabad to attend a marriage ceremony and thereafter they were not permitted by respondent No. 2 to come back to their house necessitating the filing of petition under Sections 22 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, a copy of which is on record as part of Annexure P-2 (colly). The said petition had been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.08.2019 on the ground that there was no stipulation in the transfer deeds that the transferee would look after the needs of the transferor. The merits of the petition have not been taken into consideration. The decision is patently contrary to Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt Raksha Devi vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur and others, 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 218 and, thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The matter may be remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on the merits of the controversy.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 has pleaded that the petition filed at Faridabad was not maintainable as the property in dispute is situated at Karnal. Thus, the Tribunal at Faridabad had no jurisdiction in the matter. That apart, perusal of various complaints placed on record as Annexure P-2 shows that the transfer was for consideration of Rs. 1 crore. For this reason also the petition was rendered not maintainable. Apart from these submissions, it has been argued that on merits also the petition dated August 2018 under Sections 22, 23 of the Senior Citizens Act deserves to be dismissed.