SUDESH CHHIKARA versus RAMTI DEVI & ANR

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 06-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 876
876
SUDESH CHHIKARA
v.
RAMTI DEVI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2021)
DECEMBER 06, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007:s. 23 – Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances
– Applicability of s. 23(1) – When – Held: Effecting transfer subject
to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical
needs to the transferor-senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability
of sub-section (1) of s. 23 – When transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor, the
transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion
or undue influence, and becomes voidable at the instance of the
transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal – Very often, senior citizen
executes a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her
near and dear ones, out of love and affection without any expectation
in return, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not
necessarily attached to it – Thus, when it is alleged that the conditions
mentioned in s. 23(1) are attached to a transfer, existence of such
conditions must be established before the tribunal – Perusal of the
petition u/s. 23 filed by respondent no.1-senior citizen shows that it
was not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was
executed subject to a condition that the transferees-daughters of
senior citizen would provide the basic amenities and basic physical
needs to the senior citizen – No such finding was recorded by the
tribunal – It was merely pleaded that the daughter had no intention
to take care of her mother – Thus, the order of the tribunal and the
High Court cannot be sustained and, set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 174 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 16581 of
2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
Kanhaiya Singhal, Chetan Bhardwaj, Prasanna, Udit Bakshi, Priyal
Garg, Ajay Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sunil Fernandes, P. Ramesh, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Diksha Dadu,
Surya Nath Pandey, Divakar Kumar, Gagan Gupta, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL DETAILS
1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by respondent no.1
under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the 2007 Act’).
2. Respondent no.1 acquired a land bearing Khewat no.87, Khatoni
no.124, Khasra no.315 measuring 1 bigha 18 biswa. She also acquired a
land bearing Khewat No.247, Khasra No.269 (4 bighas 0 biswa) totally
measuring 5 bighas and 3 biswa in Village Basai, Tehsil and District
Gurugram, Haryana. She claimed that the acquisition was by way of
inheritance from her father. The family tree of the parties is as under:
3. Respondent no.1 executed a release deed in respect of a part
of the subject property in favour of her daughters (the appellant and
second respondent’s mother). The said release deed (no.18151) was
executed on 14th November 2008 and was duly registered. As per the
said release deed, the daughters became the owners of one-third share
each in the property subject matter of the release deed. It is also brought
SUDESH CHHIKARA v. RAMTI DEVI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
on record that on 24th March 2009, the respondent no.1 executed another
release deed (no.25502) in respect of one-fourth share in the lands
bearing Khasra No.269. The said release deed was executed by
respondent no.1 in favour of her son Sunder. Another release deed
(no.25504) was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of her son Sunder
on the same day in respect of one-half share in the lands bearing Khasra
No.315, Khasra No.314 and Khasra No.341. Both the release deeds
were registered. Respondent no.1, the appellant and the second
respondent’s mother filed Civil Suit no.175 of 2010 in the Civil Court
essentially for challenging the release deed dated 24th March 2009
(no.25504). The Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 17th July
2015 declared the release deed dated 24th March 2009 as null and void.
The Civil Court held that the release deed shall not bind respondent no.1,
the appellant and the mother of respondent no.2. Civil Suit no.234 of
2010 was filed by respondent no.1, the appellant and the second
respondent’s mothe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.