Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 20 April, 2026
CWP-18248-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203 CWP-18248-2024
Date of Decision : April 20, 2026
TEJINDER SINGH AND ANR. -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate, and
Mr. Sahil Shehrawat, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate
for the respondents No.3 to 7.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. The challenge canvassed in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal preferred by respondents No.3 to 7 under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") was allowed, and consequently, the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal came to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
2. Challenging the legality of the impugned order, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the senior citizen, namely Gurdial Singh (since deceased), had specifically pleaded and established all DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 2 the ingredients sine qua non for invocation of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 in the petition instituted before the Maintenance Tribunal against respondents No.3 to 7, thereby fully empowering the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the transfer deed dated 08.05.2017 vide its order dated 10.03.2023. It is contended that the transfer deed in question was encumbered by a specific condition obligating respondents No.3 to 7 to maintain the transferor/senior citizen, which condition stood breached by respondents No.3 to 7 subsequent to execution thereof. Consequently, cancellation of the transfer deed by the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 was fully justified.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Appellate Tribunal erred in unnecessarily interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal in the absence of any cogent or credible evidence, and merely on the basis of a presumption that the order dated 10.03.2023 was antedated. It is submitted that such presumption rested solely upon bald assertions raised by respondents No.3 to 7 without any supporting evidence on record.
4. Proceeding further, learned senior counsel contends that although no appeal could have been maintained against the legal heirs of the deceased senior citizen, yet, in the present case, the appeal itself was instituted after the demise of the senior citizen. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same, inasmuch as the jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 could be exercised only during the lifetime of the senior citizen. It is, therefore, submitted that the DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 3 impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, being wholly unsustainable in law, deserves to be set aside by this Court. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 7 stoutly opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contends that the order dated 10.03.2023 was rightly interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal, as the same was clearly antedated. In support of this contention, attention of this Court has been drawn to the zimni orders dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, which, according to learned counsel, are written in different handwriting. It is submitted that while the first zimni dated 06.03.2023 records that the matter was adjourned to 17.03.2023 at the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the senior citizen, another zimni of the same date, though written in a different handwriting, records that the case stood adjourned to 10.03.2023 at the request of the senior citizen. It is further contended that the statements of the Reader of the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the counsel representing respondents No.3 to 7 before the Tribunal unequivocally establish that the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal deliberately passed an antedated order despite being fully aware that the senior citizen had passed away on 11.03.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 7 further invites the attention of this Court to the death certificate of the senior citizen (Annexure R-3/9), obtained from the record of the Maintenance Tribunal, to submit that the same was produced before and taken on record by the DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 4 Maintenance Tribunal on 24.03.2023. It is argued that this fact clearly demonstrates that respondents No.3 to 7 continued to appear before the Maintenance Tribunal till 24.03.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 7 also submits, while drawing the attention of this Court to the petition filed by the senior citizen under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 23 of the Act of 2007, that the said petition nowhere contained any averment whatsoever to the effect that the land in question had been transferred in favour of respondents No.3 to 7 out of love and affection, subject to any condition regarding maintenance of the transferor/senior citizen. On the contrary, the sole case set up therein was that the transfer deed had been procured by respondents No.3 to 7 by practicing fraud and misrepresentation under the guise of execution of a Will. It is, therefore, contended that there was no occasion for the Maintenance Tribunal to invoke Section 23 of the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the transfer deed.
ISSUES ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION
8. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting litigants and upon perusal of the record, the following issues emerge for consideration and adjudication by this Court:-
(i) Whether the petition filed by the senior citizen before the Maintenance Tribunal contained the sine qua non ingredients for invocation of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 so as to justify cancellation of the transfer deed in question?
(ii) Whether the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal passed an antedated order by abusing and misusing his official position?DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 5
(iii) Whether, after the demise of the senior citizen, a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 could validly be maintained against his legal heirs?
(iv) Whether a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 could be maintained at the instance of any person other than a senior citizen?
ANSWERS TO THE ISSUES FRAMED
9. For the purpose of adjudicating issue No. (i), it is deemed imperative to begin with examining Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.--(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5."
10. The Act of 2007 was enacted to uphold the traditional norms of Indian Society emphasizing the duty of children and relatives to provide for DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 6 senior citizens. Accordingly, its provisions must be interpreted to achieve the legislative intent, while ensuring that the Act is not misused for the resolution of ordinary civil or property disputes within families.
11. The provisions, referred to above, empower the senior citizens to seek cancellation of any transfer of property executed by them, either by way of gift deed, or otherwise; with a condition that the transferee has undertaken the obligation to provide basic amenities and maintenance to them. In case, the transferee fails to adhere to the promised maintenance, the transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
12. Sub-clause (1), creates a legal fiction and empowers the learned Tribunal concerned, to presume that the transfer is the result of fraud, coercion or undue influence, in case, the transfer is made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities, and basic physical needs to the transferor, and post the execution of the transfer deed, the transferee fails to keep the promise.
13. Two ingredients are essential to be established by leading the cogent evidence. The first ingredient is that the transfer was subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs; and the second is, post execution of the transfer deed, the transferee failed to provide the basic amenities and physical needs.
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, it becomes necessary to succinctly encapsulate the substance of the pleadings raised by the senior citizen in the petition seeking cancellation of the transfer deed, in order to ascertain DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 7 whether sufficient averments and evidence were brought on record to establish that the transfer deed had been executed subject to the condition contemplated under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. The relevant paragraphs from the original petition are reproduced hereunder: -
"3. That the petitioner is owner in possession of the above mentioned land. The petitioner was having love with his daughters and was trusting upon them and they, while taking undue benefit of the same, have fraudulently got transferred the above said land in their names vide transfer of ownership deed No. 315 dated 08.05.2017 as they had brought the petitioner under the pretext to execute a Will and they have also got sanctioned the mutation of this Vaseeka in their names with cheating.
5. That now after execution of above said transfer deed, the petitioner has no source of income to fulfil his daily needs. The land, which was in the name of petitioner, has been fraudulently got transferred by the respondents in their names. Apart from this land, the petitioner has no source of income and now the petitioner is dying with hunger.
7. That as per law, the transfer deed got executed by the respondents from the petitioner in fraudulent manner along with the mutation, both should be cancelled so that the petitioner could spend his life in proper manner with the income to be derived from the above said land and the petitioner could fulfil his daily needs. The respondents be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 50000/- per month to the petitioner w.e.f 08.05.2017 to till the transfer of this land back in the name of petitioner."
15. A careful reading of the original petition leaves no room for doubt that the senior citizen had nowhere asserted that the transfer deed in question was executed subject to any stipulation regarding his maintenance. On the contrary, the consistent and categorical stand taken by him throughout was that respondents No.3 to 7 had fraudulently procured DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 8 execution of the transfer deed under the guise of a Will.
16. The averments contained in the original petition clearly reveal that the sine qua non requirements for exercise of jurisdiction by the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 were neither specifically pleaded nor substantiated through evidence. The gravamen of the allegations was confined entirely to the plea of fraud and misrepresentation practiced by respondents No.3 to 7 in procuring execution of the transfer deed. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the petition filed by the senior citizen did not contain the ingredients necessary for invoking Section 23 of the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the transfer deed. Issue No.(i) is answered accordingly.
17. In order to determine issue No.(ii), it is imperative to advert to the sequence of proceedings conducted before the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.
18. The senior citizen, who was survived by five daughters (respondents No.3 to 7), and one son, namely Gurjant Singh (petitioners' father), instituted a petition before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the transfer deed dated 08.05.2017 executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 7, alleging that the same had been procured fraudulently under the guise of execution of a Will. Upon notice, respondents No.3 to 7 caused appearance and filed their written statement. After completion of pleadings, the matter was adjourned on 03.03.2023 for arguments to 06.03.2023. On 06.03.2023, one Mr. Gurwinder Singh Paliwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the senior citizen and sought an DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 9 adjournment, which was granted, and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2023. In the interregnum, the senior citizen passed away on 11.03.2023. On 17.03.2023, counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 7 informed the Presiding Officer of the demise of the senior citizen, whereupon the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2023. On 24.03.2023, the death certificate of the senior citizen was produced before the Presiding Officer and taken on record. The same has also been appended as Annexure R-3/9 with the instant writ petition. However, the record reveals that the Maintenance Tribunal cancelled the transfer deed by passing the order dated 10.03.2023, i.e. one day prior to the death of the senior citizen.
19. Aggrieved by the purported antedated order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, respondents No.3 to 7 preferred a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007. The Appellate Tribunal conducted an inquiry to ascertain whether the order dated 10.03.2023 was antedated. During the course of the inquiry, statements of the respective counsel who had appeared before the Maintenance Tribunal, as well as that of the Reader of the Tribunal, were recorded, and the original record was requisitioned. Upon consideration thereof, the Appellate Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal had abused his official position by passing an antedated order, and accordingly declared the said order illegal vide the impugned order dated 14.05.2024. A show cause notice was also issued to the Presiding Officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The relevant findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal are reproduced hereunder: -
DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 10
"The circumstances surrounding the passing of the impugned order are deeply suspicious and lead to only possible conclusion that the order has been passed in back date. The is clear from the following.
1. The two zimnis dated 06.03.2023 are written in different handwritings.
2. The request for adjournment had come from the counsel for senior citizen himself and therefore question of early hearing request by senior citizen didn't even arise.
3. Statement of the reader that after 03.03.2023, no zimni order was recorded in his handwriting and file remained with the presiding officer.
4. The death certificate was marked by presiding officer on 24.03.2023 and is a part of the file clearly pointing out that file had not been closed till 24th March and proving the contention of the appellant counsel that they had been appearing before the tribunal till 24th March.
Since the document claimed to be order of tribunal is a document created in back date, this can't be deemed to be a valid order and therefore the question of appeal against such a document doesn't arise at all. The contention of the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable as appellate tribunal has become functious officio will arise only if the current case is dealt as an appeal. However, given the fact that the order has actually not been passed while the senior citizen was alive, but has been passed in backdate, the tribunal itself was functious officio after the death of senior citizen on 11th March, 2023 and therefore this alleged order is void ab-initio. Rather than the appeal, this is an administrative complaint of misuse or rather abuse of powers and tempering with the record disguised as an appeal.
20. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the statements made by the counsel representing respondents No.3 to 7 and the Reader of the Maintenance Tribunal, which are reproduced hereinbelow, it DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 11 becomes apparent that no proceedings were pending before the Maintenance Tribunal on 10.03.2023, and therefore, there existed no occasion for the Presiding Officer to pass any order on the said date. The Reader specifically deposed that he had written the zimni order dated 03.03.2023 and thereafter the file remained with the Presiding Officer. This circumstance raises substantial doubt regarding the genuineness of the proceedings purportedly conducted on 10.03.2023.
"Statement of
1. Makhan Singh, Advocate (Nabha),
2. Naresh Kumar Singla, Advocate (Nabha) Stated that in this case we were the counsel for Harvinder Kaur etc (respondents) before the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Nabha. In this case we appeared before the court of SDM Nabha on 06.03.2023 for respondents. Counsel for the applicant Shri V.P. Shukla did not came present in the court. On their behalf Shri G.S. Dhaliwal Advocate appeared as proxy counsel and had requested to adjourn the case further. The Hon'ble lower Court on the request of the above said proxy counsel adjourn the case for 17.03.2023. On 17.03.2023, we appeared before the Hon'ble Lower Court and brought it to the knowledge of the court that applicant Gurdial Singh had expired on 11.03.2023. On being informed about this, the Hon'ble Court adjourned the case for 24.03.2023 for production of the death certificate. On 24.03.2023 we produced the death certificate in the court of SDM. On death certificate having been produced, the SM ordered orally, the case to be dismissed. Dated 12.09.2023"
*** "Statement of Shri Devinder Singh, Senior Assistant, Office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Nabha.
I state that I had joined the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Nabha on 01.03.2023. I had scribed the zimni order dated 03.03.2023 in the case titled as Gurdial Singh versus Harvinder DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 12 Kaur. After that the file remained with the presiding officer. After 03.03.2023 I have not scribed any zimni in my hand.
Dated 12.09.2023"
21. Consequently, this Court finds itself in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal that the order dated 10.03.2023 was antedated. Issue No.(ii) stands answered accordingly.
22. Insofar as issue No.(iii) is concerned, which pertains to the maintainability of the statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 after the demise of the senior citizen against his legal heirs, the same is answered in the affirmative. The reason for drawing this conclusion is that the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal set aside the transfer deed executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 7. Since the legally enforceable rights of respondents No.3 to 7 in respect of the land in question were infringed by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, it gave them a cause of action against the persons claiming rights on the said land by virtue of the said order. Once the right to sue survives, the right to assail the order of the Maintenance Tribunal by availing the statutory remedy of appeal also survives.
23. In the considered opinion of this Court, answer to issue No.(iv) is also in the affirmative. The reason for drawing this inference stems from the judgment dated 28.05.2014, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7282-2010, wherein the Division Bench interpreted the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 to hold that an affected party also has a right to appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 28.05.2014 is extracted hereunder:-DEVINDER YADAV 2026.05.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18248-2024 13
"We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties."
FINAL ORDER
24. In summa, the instant writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 20, 2026 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
DEVINDER YADAV
2026.05.15 10:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment