AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.01.2019, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banswara - a Tribunal, constituted under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
Shorn of unwarranted facts, those which are relevant for the present purposes, alone are being noticed. On 14.01.2019 Smt. Kesar Bai (respondent No.2 herein) filed a petition under Sections 23, 4 & 5 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") seeking quashment of registered Gift Deed dated 14.05.2015, executed by her in favour of Jyotsana (petitioner No.1 herein). It was asserted that keeping her in dark, a Gift Deed was got executed on 10.06.2014 and thereafter registered on 14.05.2015.
The said petition was instituted in the Tribunal on 14.01.2019, wherein notices returnable on 16.01.2019 were issued. Upon service of the notice, the petitioners' counsel appeared and sought copy of the petition filed, which was provided and the matter was posted for 29.01.2019.
On 29.01.2019, when the petitioners sought time to file reply, the Court was informed by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners were likely to transfer or alienate the property, which prompted the Tribunal to record evidence of both the parties on that day itself, viz. 29.01.2019 and post the matter for arguments on 31.01.2019.
On the scheduled date i.e. 31.01.2019, the Tribunal heard the parties and quashed the contentious Gift Deed registered on 14.05.2015.
Arguments on all possible aspects have been advanced by the rival parties, but without dwelling upon them, this Court is confining the order instant with respect to the manner in which the order impugned has been passed - ignoring the principles of natural justice.
Mr. Thanvi taking the Court through the proceedings drawn by the Tribunal, pointed out that the petitioners asked for a short adjournment to file reply; which was not only refused by the Tribunal, but the evidence of the parties were recorded on 29.01.2019 itself and the matter was posted for arguments, immediately after two days. As apprehended, the petition was heard and allowed on 31.01.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Maintenance Tribunal has proceeded in an unusual haste and has decided the case involving substantial property rights of the petitioners, in a cursory manner, without even permitting the petitioner to file a reply.
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order on merit, contended that the Tribunal was justified in proceeding at such pace, as the petitioner No.1 had already entered into an agreement to sell and was about to alienate the property to frustrate the purpose of the petition and to deprive the respondent of her rights.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the proceedings and the impugned order leaves no manner of doubt that the Tribunal below has proceeded in a hot haste. The Tribunal might have been under an apprehension that the petitioners would alienate the property, but then, the Tribunal could have passed any appropriate order restraining the petitioners from transferring or alienating the property. But not granting opportunity to file reply to the petitioner No.1 has vitiated the adjudication made. Needless to observe that in absence of reply/written statement, the evidence, though led by the parties, hardly has any bearing or legal effect. The Tribunal has not only refused to allow time to file reply, but has recorded the evidence of both the parties on that very date, i.e. 29.01.2019 and posted the matter for arguments/orders on 31.01.2019.
However, urgent a matter may be, a Tribunal or a Court is required to adhere to the basic norms of reasonable opportunity of hearing, fair play and equity. In the extant facts, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have allowed a reasonable time to file reply. The order impugned dated 31.01.2019, suffers from violation of principle of natural justice, which is the fulcrum of our justice delivery system.
The order impugned is thus, quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to the dockets of the Tribunal for decision afresh on merit.
It is hereby directed that both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23.09.2019, on which date, the petitioners - Smt. Jyotsana and Chirag will file their joint/separate replies. Thereafter, the Tribunal may grant a week's time to the respondent No.2 to file rejoinder, if any. The Tribunal shall, thereafter, record evidence and decide the case by 15.11.2019.
The Tribunal shall be free to fix its own schedule having regard to its other business and convenience of the parties.
Till the matter is finally decided by the Tribunal, neither the petitioners shall transfer, alienate or otherwise create third party rights qua the property nor the respondent No.2 shall part with the possession.
Needless to clarify that this Court has not pronounced upon merit of the rights of either of the parties. Any observation made herein will not influence the decision of the Tribunal, which will obviously decide the case on the basis of pleadings, evidence, material and relevant law on the subject.
The writ petition allowed; stay petition disposed of.