Punjab And Haryana High Court Deprecates Use Of Senior Citizens Act To Settle Family Property Disputes, Upholds Transfer Deed Partially

In a recent case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticised the invocation of the maintenance provision under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to resolve a family property dispute. The court described it as “yet another example” where a family property dispute was disguised as a maintenance issue under the Senior Citizens Act. While the court acknowledged the need to secure the welfare of senior citizens, it stated that the misuse of maintenance laws in property disputes “needs to be deprecated.” Justice Kuldeep Tiwari disposed of the petition in which a senior citizen sought cancellation of a transfer deed executed by him in favor of his three grandchildren, by partially upholding the rights of one grandson and canceling the transfer deed for the other two.

Case Background

A senior citizen (petitioner) transferred his property in favour of his three grandsons (Respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5) through a transfer deed dated January 9, 2017, with the condition that they will provide him with basic needs and necessary amenities. However, the elderly, after a few years, filed a petition to cancel his transfer deed and restoration of his land, complaining that they are not looking after him and he is unable to afford his medicines and daily expenses.  

The Maintenance Tribunal passed the order in his favour on March 24, 2022. While two of the grandsons (respondents 3 and 4) didn’t have any problem with the cancellation of the transfer deed, the third grandson (respondent no. 5) challenged the order. The Appellate Tribunal allowed his appeal and set aside the Maintenance Tribunal order on May 25, 2022, with an order of fresh adjudication by the Maintenance Tribunal. The tribunal decided the case afresh and found that the grandfather is entitled to maintenance of Rs 24,000, which should be paid by the three grandsons.

The grandfather was dissatisfied with this order and appealed against it, but the Appellate Tribunal dismissed it on March 29, 2023. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking relief in terms of cancellation of the transfer deed instead of maintenance.

Arguments

The counsel of the petitioner argued that the transfer deed was executed with the condition of being maintained, but in failing to do so, the deed should be cancelled, and the property should be restored in the petitioner’s name.

The counsel of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had no objection to the deed cancellation and accepted that they were not paying maintenance to the petitioner, as they are not in possession of the property and earn no income from it.

Contrary to this, the counsel of the respondent no. 5, opposed the petition, saying that the application “is filed on behest of Respondent No. 3 & 4, as they want to settle the property dispute” so that they can get a fresh transfer deed executed in favour of them excluding respondent no. 5. The counsel provided the evidence that respondent no. 5 has been taking care of petitioner by paying his share of maintenance and also paid for his (grandfather) cataract surgery.

Court Observation

After taking into account the arguments and evidence, the court noted that the assertions against the respondent no. 5, that he is not maintaining the petitioner, were vague and lacked any positive evidence.

At the same time, respondent nos. 3 and 4 were admitted that they don’t possess the said property, derive no income from it, and, in fact, are in favour of deed cancellation.

The court observed that the intent is clear that the family property dispute was being settled through the inappropriate invocation of the Senior Citizens Act.

Court Judgement

It stated, “In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner requiring interference of this Court, to cancel the transfer deed, executed in favour of Respondent No. 5.”

The court then cancelled the transfer deed partially, which pertained to the share transferred in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It ordered their shares to be reverted to the petitioner. The share of respondents remained the same. However, the court directed him to continue paying his share of monthly maintenance (Rs 8,000) to the petitioner.