Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Sharan Dixit vs Shrimati Urmila Dixit on 2 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11796 of 2022
Between:-
1. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT S/O SHAMBHU SHARAN
DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNELPLOYED R/O IN FRONT OF KHELGRAM,
SAGAR ROAD CHHATARPUR CURRENTLY
RESIDING IN GRAM BIDOKHAR, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR (U.P) (UTTAR PRADESH)
2. SHRIMATI PRATIBHA W/O SUNIL SHARAN
DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O IN FRONT OF KHELGRAM,
SAGAR ROAD, CHHATRPUR, CURRENTLY
RESIDING IN GRAM BIDOKHAR, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR(U.P.) (UTTAR PRADESH)
3. PIYUSH @ ANKUR DIXIT S/O SUNIL SHARAN
DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O IN FRONT OF KHELGRAM,
SAGAR ROAD, CHHATRPUR, CURRENTLY
RESIDING IN GRAM BIDOKHAR, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR(U.P.) (UTTAR PRADESH)
4. VARUN @ AKSH DIXIT S/O SUNIL SHARAN
DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O IN FRONT OF KHELGRAM,
SAGAR ROAD, CHHATRPUR, CURRENTLY
RESIDING IN GRAM BIDOKHAR, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR(U.P.) (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
BHAVIL PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRIMATI URMILA DIXIT W/O SHAMBHU
SHARAN DIXIT R/O IN FRONT OF KHELGRAM,
Signature Not Verified
SAN SAGAR ROAD CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST
.....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SHRI M.L. JAISWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
RAJSHREE JAISWAL, ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved of orders dated 27/09/2021 Annexure P-8 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur in Case No. 98/B-121/2021-22 whereby the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has allowed an application filed by the respondent who is mother of petitioner no. 1 and has set aside the gift deed dated 9/09/2019 executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner(s).
This order was challenged in appeal before the court of Collector, District Chhatarpur in case no. 91/Appeal/2021-22 and petitioners' appeal too was rejected vide order dated 25/04/2022 Annexure P-9 which is also under challenge before this High Court.
Before adverting to merits of this case, it is necessary to point out that vide order dated 17/06/2022, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner had argued that Sub Divisional Officer was not authorized to pass an order declaring the gift deed to be null and void which was duly executed by the parents/grandparents in their favour and this Court while issuing notice to the respondents had directed the parties as an interim measure to maintain the status quo, qua the gift deed pending final adjudication in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the son of respondent Smt. Urmila Dixit. Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the respondent whereas petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are her grand-sons. It is submitted Signature Not Verified SAN that certain properties were mentioned in the name of the respondent and her Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST husband Shri Shambhu Sharan Dixit.
3Smt. Urmila Dixit is a retired teacher/Principal whereas her husband Shri Shambhu Sharan Dixit is retired from the post of Director, Public Instructions, Bhopal and is suffering from alzheimer for the last ten years. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has four sons out of which two elder sons namely Shri Sudhir Sharan Dixit and Shri Sushil Sharan Dixit are residing abroad whereas petitioner no. 1 and one Sumit Sharan Dixit were residing with the respondent.
Wife of petitioner no. 1 i.e. petitioner no. 2 was a teacher at Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Chhatarpur who on transfer was staying at Tikamgarh. Petitioner no. 2 resigned from Maharishi Vidya Mandir opened a school at Khajuraho, District Chhatarpur.
It is also not in dispute that the respondent along with her husband has some self earned properties at village Bagota, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur on which they have constructed a house on an area measuring 90x85 square feet. They also have 17 acres of agricultural land, out of which 15.05 acres is in the name of the respondent whereas 1.80 acres is in the name of Shambhu Sharan Dixit on which house was constructed.
Respondent made a complaint to the S.D.M. that on 7/09/2019, petitioner no. 1 had executed a Vachan Patra/promissory note to take care of the respondent and her husband on the basis of which a gift deed was executed on 9/09/2019 in relation to a land measuring 2.093 hectares but thereafter, petitioners started creating nuisance and not only harassed her another son Sumit Sharan Dixit but also his sons etc. besides the respondent and her Signature Not Verified husband for which criminal cases were lodged, as a result, petitioners stopped SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR taking care of the respondent when she was forced to invoke the provisions of Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are taking care of the respondent and, therefore, there was no need for invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. The petitioners were also not given any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and be set aside.
Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel in his turn submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference, therefore, the impugned order be maintained. It is further submitted that Section 23 of the Act of 2007 gives an authority to the Tribunal i.e. the S.D.M. to declare the gift deed or any deed void by virtue of which property is transferred by any senior citizen after commencement of the Act of 2007 when transferee fails to provide such amenities and physical needs of the senior citizens.
It is submitted that petitioners are engaging in Hooliganism and they have not only refused to maintain senior citizens but caused physical harm to the senior citizens and the son and grandsons namely Sumit Sharan and his sons who intervened and tried to maintain the respondent and her husband.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that Section 23 gives ample authority to the Tribunal to declare transfer of the property as void for the circumstances mentioned in sub-section (i) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Thus, the contention of learned senior counsel Shri Manoj Sharma that the S.D.M. had no authority to declare the gift deed void is against the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act of 2007.
Signature Not VerifiedSAN As far as second argument put forth by Shri Manoj Sharma that they Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST were not given any opportunity of hearing and no steps were taken for 5 reconciliation/mediation is concerned, it has come on record that petitioners after filing their joint reply, though not signed by all the petitioners disputing the averments made by the respondent in her complaint stopped appearing before the Tribunal.
The learned S.D.M. has clearly noted a fact that since non-applicants i.e. the petitioners in the present case have chosen to remain absent is indicative of the fact that they have no interest in hearing of the case and has also noted a fact that in their absence, no mediation proceedings are possible.
This specific finding in the impugned order dated 27/09/2021 passed by the learned S.D.M. clearly indicates that without assigning any reason, petitioners chose to remain absent and, therefore, in absence, mediation is not possible.
Thus, even the second ground for indulgence is not made out. Petitioners have not brought on record a copy of Vachan Patra dated 07/09/2019 as was executed in favour of the respondent mother and her husband. Therefore, their contention that they have not failed to serve their senior citizen parents too is not made out. It is evident that petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.
Thus, in my opinion, the impugned orders are well reasoned orders having passed after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case so also the legal provisions contained in the Act of 2007 does not call for any interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, thus I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal respectively calling for any interference.
Signature Not Verified SANAccordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST 6(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.08.06 11:57:22 IST