Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt.Ram Rati wife of late Sh.Ram Mehar, resident of village Pitampura, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat had brought an application under Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against her grandson Naveen Kumar son of Sh.Sajjan, resident of village Pitampura, Tehsil Rai,District Sonepat seeking ejectment of the 1 of 17 CWP-5553-2019(O&M) -2- latter from one plot measuring 100 square yards with construction standing thereon. According to the applicant -first party, she was allotted a plot measuring 100 square yards by Gram Panchayat of village Rai, District Sonepat, which she had transferred in favour of her grandson Naveen - respondent - second party vide deed No.2979/1 dated 7.12.2016; before the transfer the respondent - second party had assured applicant - first party that he would take care of her and maintain her but soon after the transfer of property, attitude of Naveen Kumar towards the petitioner changed and he started misbehaving and quarrelling with the applicant going to the extent of giving beatings to her; Prem a son of applicant - first party had filed a complaint against Naveen Kumar - second party in that regard with Police Station Kundli, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered; the respondent- second party was arrested and released on bail in that case, as such, the applicant - first party had brought the application in question.

2. On notice being issued, the respondent - second party put in appearance and submitted written reply denying the allegations with regard to his misbehaving with the applicant, quarrelling with her or giving thrashings to her. According to him, the applicant had filed the application at the instance of her son Prem by concocting a false story; as a matter of fact son of applicant namely Prem had caused fracture on the leg of Ram Rati and assaulted Jyoti, sister of respondent Naveen regarding which FIR No.610 of 2015 was registered with Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat; the matter is pending trial in the Court; that when applicant Ram Rati had suffered injuries, the respondent - second 2 of 17 CWP-5553-2019(O&M) -3- party had got her treated from Dua Hospital, Sonepat bearing all the expenses; he has been treating the applicant with due respect; on the other hand the applicant is a quarrelsome lady due to which her children did not wish to keep her with them; the respondent - second party has been residing with applicant - first party for more than 10 years; both of them are having a joint ration card; that after registration of the transfer deed in question, the respondent - second party had constructed a residential house on the plot by spending more than Rs.25 lakhs; Prem son of applicant with an intention to get that construction demolished had got filed a false complaint from applicant against the respondent; the respondent second party offered to maintain the applicant by giving monthly maintenance amount and prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. After hearing arguments, Sub-Divisional Magistrate - cum - Chairman,Maintenance Tribunal, Sonepat vide order dated 4.1.2019 allowed the application. For ready reference, the operative part of the said order is being reproduced as under:

During arguments, the ld. Counsel for the second party submitted that the applicant with common intention and conspiracy with her son Prem filed the false and concocted complaint against the second party for unnecessary harassing him and for giving undue benefits to her son, Prem. After the registration of Deed No.2979, dated 07.12.2016 the second party invested more than 25 lakhs approximately, had constructed the residential house on the said plot. The son of the applicant, Prem by alluring the applicant with the bad intention for demolishing the constructed house filed 3 of 17 CWP-5553-2019(O&M) -4-

The children are expected to look after their elderly parents properly which is not only a value based principle but a bounden duty as enshrined within the mandate of the Act of 2007.

10. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the 7 of 17 CWP-5553-2019(O&M) -8- judgments referred to by learned counsel for the parties, I find that the writ petition is doomed for failure.

11. Admittedly and as it comes out from the record Smt. Ram Rati is an aged, widowed woman, a senior citizen and petitioner Naveen Kumar is her grandson. A perusal of the transfer deed executed by Smt. Ram Rati in favour of Naveen Kumar, copy Annexure p-4, is very crucial. It is specifically mentioned therein that the transferor could cancel the transfer deed if the transferee did not maintain and take proper care of the transferor. It is specific case of Smt. Ram Rati that after execution of the transfer deed, transferee Naveen Kumar has not been taking care of her and maintaining her although such allegations are controverted by Naveen Kumar stating that he has been living with Smt. Ram Rati since long, having joint ration card with her; that he has been taking care of her paying her ration bills and taking care of her other needs and suddenly at the instance of one of her sons, she is seeking cancellation of the transfer deed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has pointed out to copy of the ration card available on the record, as well as, affidavit of one Sanjay a Kiryana merchant, to the effect that Naveen Kumar has been paying ration bills of Smt. Ram Rati. Firstly, it is not disputed that Naveen Kumar had been residing with Smt. Ram Rati and for that reason pleased with the services rendered by him, she had executed a transfer deed in his favour hoping that he would continue doing so in future, but she was careful in getting a clause inserted in the transfer deed that if he did not do so, then the transfer would stand cancelled. Even otherwise, if Naveen Kumar had been taking care of Smt. Ram Rati, then there was no occasion 8 of 17 CWP-5553-2019(O&M) -9- for Smt. Ram Rati to approach SDM-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Sonepat, seeking cancellation of the transfer deed. The affidavit of Sanjay placed on record does not inspire much confidence, since it is quite vague, lacking in material details, as to since when Naveen Kumar has been clearing the ration bills of Smt. Ram Rati; the amounts so paid by him to Sanjay; the period for which it was so given etc. Therefore, it is not established that Naveen Kumar had been taking care of Smt. Ram Rati after transfer by the latter in the favour of former. Therefore, in terms of Section 23 (1), it is to be taken that the transfer was got made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and it can be declared to be void by the Tribunal at the option of the transferor.