HARPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dtd. 26/11/2021 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the application filed under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 2007 Act") has been allowed and the transfer deed vasika dtd. 25/7/2019 and mutation No.18591 have been set aside and cancelled in respect of the property situated at Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. Challenge is also to the order dtd. 28/4/2023 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.4 who is the father of the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 23 of the 2007 Act for cancellation of transfer of ownership document No.2019-20/78/1/1236 dtd. 25/7/2019. Although, the application and reply as well as the transfer deed have not been annexed along with the present petition but a perusal of order dtd. 26/11/2021 (Annexure P-7) would show that it was the case of respondent No.4 that he was a senior citizen and was aged about 75 years and had executed the transfer deed in favour of his daughter Harpreet Kaur (present petitioner) and while executing the said document, the petitioner had stated that she would look after and take care of respondent No.4 in his old age, but however, after getting the transfer deed executed in her favour, she has stopped taking care of respondent No.4. It is further the case of respondent No.4 that he has an old aged wife and another daughter namely Parampal Kaur who is a divorcee and she along with her two daughters is residing with him and since the said Parampal Kaur is a divorcee thus, the respondent No.4 is having to take care of the said Parampal Kaur and her daughters (grand children of respondent No.4). It is admitted before this Court that the petitioner, after execution of the transfer deed, had gone to Canada and even at present is residing in Canada. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the abovesaid application. The Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum-Maintenance Tribunal vide order dtd. 26/11/2021 (Annexure P-7) had allowed the said application and had ordered cancellation of the transfer deed in question. A perusal of the said order would show that it was specifically recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate that it was a conditional transfer and as per the conditions mentioned at page 4 of the transfer deed, it had been stated that in case the beneficiary did not take care of the transferee and did not fulfill his needs of medicines etc. or violated the conditions mentioned therein, then the transfer deed could be cancelled. It was observed that the petitioner had not been taking care of respondent No.4 and had not been fulfilling his basic needs and rather had been residing in Canada and thus, the transfer deed was ordered to be cancelled. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala vide order dtd. 28/4/2023 (Annexure P-8). In the said order, it was observed that respondent No.4 was a senior citizen and was suffering from old age ailments and that wife of respondent No.4 who is the mother of the petitioner was also of old age and that he had three daughters, including the present petitioner, Jaswinder Kaur and one Parampal Kaur and the said Parampal Kaur who was a divorcee, along with her two daughters, were also to be looked after by respondent No.4. The fact that the transfer was conditional and also the fact that the petitioner was residing in Canada and was not taking care of respondent No.4 was also noted. It is the said two orders which have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions to challenge the impugned orders. First argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present dispute is a family dispute between the petitioner (daughter of respondent No.4) and respondent No.4 and that the present case has been instituted at the instance of the third daughter namely Jaswinder Kaur, after the petitioner had left for Canada. Second argument raised is that respondent No.4 has his own source of income and has submitted that respondent No.4 is also the owner of one showroom at Punjabi Bagh. It is submitted that on the said two aspects, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.