RAKSHA DEVI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 02.06.2017 referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench for the determination of the following questions or any other questions arising in the context thereof:-

(2.) The learned counsel, however, invited us to answer only the following question and any other incidental thereto:-

(3.) For the purpose of answering this reference, it is sufficient to refer to only a few facts which are stated in the order of reference itself. Respondent No.1 is the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Respondent No.2 is the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cumPresiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Hoshiarpur. Respondent No.3 is the petitioner's mother. The petitioner has two brothers and three sisters who are not parties to these proceedings. One of the petitioner's sister Salochna Devi died. Respondent No.3 transferred land admeasuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas by a registered document dated 28.07.2008 and land admeasuring 13 Kanals 9 Marlas by a registered document dated 06.09.2012. The petitioner alleges that the transfer was on account of respondent No.3 having been deserted by her other siblings and on account of her having looked after respondent No.3 for about 35 years. The petitioner's case is that one of the sisters had respondent No.3 dishonestly and wrongly filed an application under section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate-cumPresiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Hoshiarpur. The application was filed by that sister's husband as the constituted attorney of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 sought the cancellation of the said transfer deeds dated 28.07.2008 and 06.09.2012. Respondent No.3 alleged that the petitioner fraudulently took her in confidence and assured her that she could take care of her in her old age and would get her treated and on the basis of such representation fraudulently induced her into executing the said transfer deeds dated 28.07.2008 and 06.09.2012. She further alleged that thereafter the petitioner and her husband started threatening and harassing her. For instance, they stated that if the petitioner failed to transfer her house in their names they would stop looking after her in every respect compelling her to live with her other daughter. The petitioner, therefore, sought annulment of said transfer deeds in exercise of her right under section 23 of the Act. The petitioner has denied these allegations. The petitioner contended that the application has been filed at the behest of her sister and that the allegations contained therein are totally unfounded.