SWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the order dtd. 4/12/2020 (Annexsure P-5) passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claim raised by the respondent No. 5 under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as '2007 Act') so as to cancel the transfer deed No. 106 dtd. 24/4/2015 was rejected and only direction was issued to pay Rs.10,000.00 per month to respondent No. 5 so as to maintain him, has been setaside by the Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 26/8/2021 (Annexure P-1) and the transfer deed dtd. 24/4/2015 has been set-aside.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 26/8/2021 (Annexure P-1) which has been passed by the Appellate Authority is without appreciating the provisions of Sec. 23 of 2007 Act as well as the settled principle of law settled on the said issue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another, 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 226. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, it is a conceded fact that the transfer of the land vide the transfer deed dtd. 24/4/2015 was not subject to the provisions of 2007 Act and further, nothing has been brought on record as to what amenities and physical needs of respondent No. 5 were not being fulfilled, especially when, the Tribunal has already granted the maintenance directing both the sons of respondent No. 5 to pay Rs.10,000.00 per month to respondent No. 5 hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dtd. 26/8/2021 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submits that it is discretion of the respondent No. 5 to accept the maintenance or to get the transfer deed cancelled, hence, in an appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against the order of the Tribunal dtd. 4/12/2020 (Annexure P-5), the benefit of cancellation of the transfer deed dtd. 24/4/2015 has been passed which is perfectly valid and legal. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that there is no requirement that the transfer deed should be subject to the provisions of 2007 Act and concede the factum that there are no pleadings with regard to the non-grant of the basic amenities or the basic physical needs in the application submitted under Sec. 23 of 2007 Act.