Sunil Kapoor vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Kirti Singh, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.4 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’) was allowed and Transfer Deed No.4191 dated 21.07.2017, executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner, was annulled, as also the order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed.

As per the pleaded facts, respondent No.4, who is the father of the petitioner, approached the competent authority under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 seeking annulment of Transfer Deed No.4191 dated 21.07.2017 in respect of factory shed No.S-211, Industrial Area, Jalandhar, measuring approximately 12 Marlas 28 square feet. It was the case of respondent No.4 that the property had been acquired by him vide registered document No.2274 dated 02.06.2008 and that, in July 2017, the petitioner requested him to transfer the property in his favour on the assurance that he would take care of respondent No.4 and his wife. It was alleged that, acting upon the assurance of the petitioner and out of love and affection, respondent No.4 executed the aforesaid Transfer Deed in his favour. It was further alleged by respondent No.4 that after obtaining the property, the petitioner failed to look after him. In particular, it was alleged that in September 2020, respondent No.4 suffered from tuberculosis and remained hospitalized for about ten days, but the petitioner did not take proper care of him and thereafter even compelled him to shift to an old-age home. It was also alleged that the petitioner pressurized respondent No.4 in relation to the affairs of his business and, upon refusal, subjected him to abusive behaviour and subsequently stopped taking care of respondent No.4 and his wife. The allegations were denied by the petitioner.

Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate allowed the petition under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 and annulled the transfer. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was thereafter dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the authorities below failed to appreciate the material facts and the defence raised by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the property had initially been dealt with through a General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2005 and that, subsequently, the property was transferred in favour of respondent No.4 vide registered document No.2274 dated 02.06.2008. Thereafter, respondent No.4 transferred the property back to the petitioner vide registered Transfer Deed No.4191 dated 21.07.2017. Learned senior counsel submits that the said transfer deed contains no condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities or basic physical needs to respondent No.4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, discharged his moral obligations towards his father. According to the petitioner, when respondent No.4 suffered from tuberculosis in September 2020 and remained hospitalized at Gulab Devi Hospital, Jalandhar, the petitioner took care of him and also bore the expenditure incurred on his treatment. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had advanced approximately Rs.19 lakhs to respondent No.4 as an unsecured loan for sustaining his business and that, as the amount remained unpaid, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.07.2021 with one Neeraj Batra. The petitioner further relies upon the subsequent events, including the disowning of the petitioner by respondent No.4 and the civil litigation between the parties.

Learned senior counsel has also referred to the compromise dated 04.01.2022 entered into between the parties and submitted that, pursuant thereto, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and respondent No.4 agreed to withdraw the pending civil proceedings as well as the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. It is submitted that respondent No.4 withdrew the civil suit, but did not honour the remaining understanding and subsequently continued with the proceedings under Section 23 and instituted another civil suit. Reliance has also been placed upon FIR No.274 dated 12.11.2022 registered against respondent No.4, to contend that the conduct of the parties was not one-sided.

The principal legal submission of learned senior counsel is that the essential statutory requirement under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 is absent in the present case. It is contended that the transfer deed dated 21.07.2017 did not contain a condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and that even the application filed by respondent No.4 did not contain the necessary statutory foundation in the precise terms contemplated by Section 23. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, decided on 06.12.2022.

Learned senior counsel has further argued that the real dispute between the parties is essentially a business and monetary dispute, which has subsequently been given the colour of a dispute concerning maintenance and neglect. It is submitted that the beneficial provisions of the Act of 2007 cannot be permitted to be utilised for resolving ordinary disputes relating to business, property or money. It has also been argued that, in view of the nature of the dispute, the matter ought to have been referred to a Conciliation Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 2007.

Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has sought to project a disputed transaction as a purely commercial arrangement. It is submitted that respondent No.4 had transferred the property in favour of his son upon the clear assurance that the petitioner would take care of respondent No.4 and his wife and would meet their daily needs. The transfer deed itself records that the executor and beneficiary were aware of the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012.

Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner establishes that the assurance on the basis of which the property was transferred was not honoured. Reference has been made to the allegations of neglect and maltreatment, the medical material and the DDR placed on record. It is further submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise dated 04.01.2022, under which the petitioner had agreed to take care of respondent No.4 and his wife and to maintain respect, love and affection towards them. According to respondent No.4, although the civil suit was withdrawn pursuant to the compromise, the petitioner subsequently resumed the alleged maltreatment, resulting in continuation of the proceedings under Section 23 and further civil litigation.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

At the outset, the legal framework governing the controversy may be noticed. Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 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 constitute the statutory foundation for exercise of power under Section 23(1).

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, decided on 06.12.2022, has specifically held that the existence of the condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor is essential for invoking Section 23(1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made it clear that such a condition cannot merely be presumed from the fact that the transfer has been made in favour of a son or other close relative.

At the same time, the statutory requirement cannot be construed or applied in a manner so rigidly as to defeat the very object of the legislation. In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others, Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the principles laid down in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another (supra), reiterated that the provisions of the Act of 2007, being beneficial in nature, must receive a purposive interpretation so as to advance the object of protecting the dignity, security and well-being of senior citizens, while giving due effect to the statutory requirements of Section 23.

The aforesaid judgments, therefore, have to be read together. While the existence of a condition accompanying the transfer 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. 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.

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Transfer Deed dated 21.07.2017 does not contain an express stipulation in the statutory language that the petitioner would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent No.4. The recital in the transfer deed regarding the parties' awareness of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2012 cannot, by itself, be treated as the statutory condition contemplated by Section 23(1). However, that is not the end of the matter.

Respondent No.4 had specifically pleaded before the competent authority that the petitioner had requested transfer of the property upon the assurance that he would take care of respondent No.4 and his wife and would attend to their daily needs. This was not a case where the plea of maintenance or care was introduced for the first time at a later stage. The same constituted the very foundation of the proceedings initiated under Section 23(1). The subsequent compromise dated 04.01.2022 also assumes relevance as a piece of material relied upon by respondent No.4, particularly insofar as it records an undertaking on the part of the petitioner concerning the care, respect, love and affection towards respondent No.4 and his wife. While such subsequent document cannot, by itself, retrospectively create a condition which did not accompany the original transfer, it may be taken into consideration as subsequent conduct while appreciating the rival versions.

The authorities below, after considering the rival versions and the material placed before them, have proceeded on the basis that the transfer was made upon an assurance of care and that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner amounted to failure to honour such assurance. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the care allegedly provided by him during the hospitalization of respondent No.4, the expenditure incurred towards his treatment, the alleged loan transaction, the agreement to sell dated 27.07.2021, the subsequent compromise and the criminal proceedings between the parties. These circumstances undoubtedly form part of the factual controversy. However, the existence of such competing factual circumstances, by itself, does not show that the findings recorded by the competent authorities are perverse or unsupported by the material on record.

It is also relevant that the mere existence of business or monetary disputes between the parties does not, as a matter of law, exclude the applicability of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. If, on consideration of the material, the competent authority finds that a transfer was accompanied by an understanding concerning care and maintenance and that such understanding was subsequently breached, the existence of collateral disputes between the parties cannot by itself nullify the statutory remedy. Conversely, the mere fact that the transfer was made by a parent in favour of his child would also not be sufficient; the statutory ingredients must still be established on the material available before the authority.

As regards the submission concerning conciliation, Section 6(6) of the Act of 2007 provides that the Tribunal may, before hearing an application under Section 5, refer the matter to a Conciliation Officer. The provision is thus enabling in nature and does not make such reference an indispensable precondition for adjudication of every dispute arising under the Act. In any event, no prejudice resulting from non-reference to conciliation has been demonstrated in the present case, particularly when the parties had themselves entered into a compromise during the pendency of their disputes and the competent authorities thereafter considered the matter on merits.

This Court is also conscious of the fact that the present proceedings arise under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review in such proceedings is distinct from that of an appellate proceeding. The Court is not required to substitute its own assessment of disputed facts for that of the statutory authorities merely because another view may also be possible.

In the present case, the petitioner seeks, in substance, reconsideration of the factual controversy regarding the circumstances in which the property was transferred, the assurance allegedly extended by him, the subsequent conduct of the parties, the alleged care provided by him during the hospitalization of respondent No.4, the monetary transactions between the parties and the effect of the subsequent compromise. These are matters which were within the domain of the competent authorities and have been considered by them.

The material placed before this Court does not establish that the authorities below acted without jurisdiction, ignored a mandatory statutory requirement, denied the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, or recorded findings which are so unreasonable or unsupported by the material on record as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The mere absence of an express statutory recital in the Transfer Deed dated 21.07.2017 cannot, in the factual setting of the present case, be considered in isolation from the specific case pleaded by respondent No.4 and the material considered by the authorities below.

The beneficial object of the Act of 2007 undoubtedly warrants a purposive interpretation, but such interpretation cannot dispense with the statutory foundation of Section 23. In the present case, however, the authorities below have proceeded on the basis of a specific case of transfer upon an assurance of care, followed by a finding of failure to honour that assurance. No perversity in such appreciation of the factual material has been demonstrated before this Court.

Consequently, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in the impugned orders dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-13) and 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-18), warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Before parting with the matter, 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 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.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.