The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of a maintenance tribunal in Jalandhar that ordered the annulment of a property transfer to a son failing to maintain his parents.
In October 2022, a divisional magistrate in Jalandhar passed the initial annulment order based on the father’s complaint, which the deputy commissioner subsequently upheld. It was against this order the son had approached high court in 2023.
The court further recorded that the father specifically said in his complaint about the assurance of the son and the case in hand is not that the father introduced pleadings about assurance at a later stage. The son argued in high court that essential statutory requirement under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 was absent in this case. The court noted that Section 23(1) provides a specific remedy in respect of a transfer of property by a senior citizen where the transfer is subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to provide the same. Thus, the existence of such a condition and its subsequent breach constitutes the statutory foundation for exercise of power under Section 23(1). “While the existence of a condition accompanying the transfer deed remains a necessary requirement for invoking Section 23(1), the same has to be examined in the context of the transaction as a whole and not by adopting an unduly technical approach confined merely to the use of particular words in the transfer document. Further, mention in the transfer deed regarding the parties’ awareness of the 2007 law also cannot be treated as the statutory condition as contemplated by Section 23(1). It also found that a compromise between the parties in 2022 also finds mention of the assurance from the son. “..this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted to ensure that the elderly are able to live with dignity, security and care.
The transfer did not contain a condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. The court upheld the tribunal order adding that the mere absence of an express statutory recital in the transfer deed cannot, in the factual setting of the case, be considered in isolation from the specific case pleaded by the father and the material considered by the tribunal. The very circumstance that senior citizens are increasingly compelled to invoke the process of law to secure basic care, protection and necessities from their own children is a matter of serious concern.
The provisions of such beneficial legislation must, therefore, be construed purposively and liberally, keeping in view the dignity of the aged and the legislative object sought to be achieved,” it observed.
The existence of such condition, however, must be established from the transfer document, the pleadings of the parties, the circumstances surrounding the transaction and the material brought before the competent authority,” the court observed, adding that the transfer deed does not contain an express stipulation that the petitioner would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the father.
