SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition assails the order dtd. 28/7/2022, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Bawal, whereby the application filed by respondent No.4 under Ss. 4, 5, 9 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007"?) was allowed, resulting in the cancellation of Transfer Deed No.573 dtd. 22/6/2015, executed in favour of petitioner No.1. The petitioners have also challenged the subsequent order dtd. 30/11/2022, passed by the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Rewari, dismissing their statutory appeal against the order dtd. 28/7/2022.

(2.) In assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioners commenced by narrating the sequence of events leading to the execution of the transfer deed in question. It is submitted that respondent No.4- Smt.Mangti, who is presently aged about 82 years, has two daughters, namely Santosh Devi (petitioner No.1) and Leela Devi (respondent No.5). Respondent No.4 inherited 31 Kanals and 07 Marlas of land from her father, out of which she executed a release deed dtd. 29/9/2014 in favour of her daughter/respondent No.5 for 16 Kanals and 05 Marlas. Since petitioner No.1 was not given any share in the ancestral property, she raised objection before her mother/respondent No.4, whereupon respondents No.4 and 5 mutually agreed to execute a joint transfer deed transferring 04 Kanals and 06 Kanals of land respectively from their shares in favour of petitioner No.1.

(3.) Referring to the aforesaid sequence of events, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application before the Maintenance Tribunal was filed by respondent No.4 at the instance and instigation of respondent No.5. It is contended that the transfer deed does not contain any recital or condition requiring the transferee/petitioner No.1 to maintain or provide basic amenities to the transferor/respondent No.4, and that the execution of the transfer deed was purely a component of a family partition. To fortify this submission, it is emphasized that respondent No.5, who was not a senior citizen, was also a co-executant to the transfer deed, having transferred 06 Kanals of land to the petitioner No.1. In the absence of any express condition in the transfer deed, respondent No.4 is estopped from invoking Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007 to seek its cancellation.