ORDER : ” This is a very unfortunate legal battle in which daughter and mother are pitted against each other. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that while living together in a dwelling house owned by the respondent, a sense of discord persisted between the parties. Feeling disgruntled due to total apathy of the petitioner towards her moral and social obligation, the respondent laid a claim petition under Sections 4, 5 & 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (for short, ' Act of 2007”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Assistant District Collector, Jodhpur (for short, ' learned Tribunal” ). 3. In the petition, it was inter alia averred by the respondent that she is owner of a dwelling house situated at Bajrang Colony, Golnadi, Ummed Chowk, Jodhpur. The respondent performed marriage of the petitioner as per Hindu rites and rituals and offered her requisite dowry. After marriage, on some occasions, when petitioner visited respondent, the respondent informed her that she is unable to maintain herself as there is no source of income for incurring medical expenses and other requirements. As per version of the respondent, petitioner assured her that she will provide maintenance and look-after her if the dwelling house is transferred in her name by executing a testamentary instrument. The respondent has also stated in the petition that petitioner assured her that she will not occupy the dwelling house during her lifetime. On that assurance, the Will was executed on 30th of November, 2011, which was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar II, Jodhpur. The respondent has made a specific averment in the complaint that after execution of the Will, petitioner never visited her and no endeavour was made by her to pay maintenance. It is also stated in the petition that petitioner has occupied the dwelling house without there being any authority and being old and infirm respondent was unable to resist her from taking possession of the dwelling house. With these averments, prayer was made for eviction of petitioner from the dwelling house and to grant her any other relief. 4. The petition laid on behalf of respondent was contested by petitioner and all the allegations were denied. In her return, the petitioner has stated that out of five children she is youngest and she is faithfully observing her obligation to maintain the respondent. 4. The petition laid on behalf of respondent was contested by petitioner and all the allegations were denied. In her return, the petitioner has stated that out of five children she is youngest and she is faithfully observing her obligation to maintain the respondent. As per version of the petitioner, eldest son of the respondent is well-off being contractor and elder daughter is also affluent as her husband is having sufficient means, but the respondent has unnecessarily made this complaint on false and fabricated facts just to harass her. 5. After submission of the reply, the learned Tribunal heard arguments and vide impugned order allowed the petition laid by the respondent. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has cancelled Will dated 30th of November, 2011, which was executed by respondent in favour of the petitioner, and has also ordered eviction of the petitioner from the house within fifteen days. 6. The writ petition is contested by respondent and reply is filed defending the impugned order. It is submitted in the reply that petitioner has forcibly entered into the house in question and her intention is to grab the property during lifetime of the respondent. It is also submitted in the return that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act of 2007, which calls for no interference. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Mehra, has argued that the order impugned to the extent it has declared the Will executed by respondent in favour of petitioner as null and void, is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is not sustainable. Mr. Mehra has submitted that the Will as such is not transfer of property when testator is alive, and therefore, Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is not at all attracted in the instant case. Learned counsel Mr. Mehra would contend that very foundation of the eviction order is annulment of Will, which is wholly without jurisdiction and as such the eviction order against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. Per contra, Mr. Khet Singh has argued that petitioner has practiced fraud by alluring the respondent to execute Will of dwelling house in her favour and thereafter she has disowned her commitment, therefore, impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. Mr. 8. Per contra, Mr. Khet Singh has argued that petitioner has practiced fraud by alluring the respondent to execute Will of dwelling house in her favour and thereafter she has disowned her commitment, therefore, impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. Mr. Khet Singh has argued that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case the learned Tribunal has rightly declared the Will as null and void and the said order is just and proper. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other materials available on record. 10. The enactment of the Act of 2007 is based on traditional norms and values of the Indian society. Laying stress on providing care for elderly persons, the enactment reminds traditional norms and values of the Indian Society. It is noticed that large number of elderly persons, particularly widowed women, are not being looked after by their families. This sort of situation, at times, forces them to spend their twilight years all alone exposing them to emotional neglect and without any financial support. The Act is intended to succor vows of the parents or the grand-parents by providing appropriate mechanism for need based maintenance to the senior citizens besides better medical facilities. The Act is also promulgated with the solemn object for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and liberty of elderly persons and set up of Old-age Homes in every district. As per scheme of the Act of 2007, a wide jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal by virtue of Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2007. Under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, the Tribunal is also clothed with the jurisdiction to declare transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. 11. The legislative intent of the Act of 2007 is unquestionable but a crucial question which has cropped up in the instant case is whether Will is a transfer of property within the four corners of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, more particularly when testator is alive? 12. In the Indian Succession Act 1925, ' Will' is defined under Section 2 (h), which reads as under: (h) ' Will' means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. 13. 12. In the Indian Succession Act 1925, ' Will' is defined under Section 2 (h), which reads as under: (h) ' Will' means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. 13. A bare perusal of definition of ' Will' (supra) makes it clear crystal clear that it does not involve any transfer, nor effect any transfer inter-vivos, but is a legal expression of the wishes and intention of a person in regard to his properties which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. Thus, a Will directs the distribution of property in a particular way after death of the testator. It is trite that Wills are ambulatory and are by their nature revocable. A testator during his lifetime is well within his rights to revoke or cancel the Will. Taking into account the true construction of the Will and its legal effect during the lifetime of the testator, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed a grave and serious jurisdictional error in declaring the Will as void by resorting to Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Learned Tribunal has, in fact, misconstrued the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 while passing the impugned order to the extent Will dated 30th of November, 2011 is annulled. As the learned Tribunal has passed the order of eviction against the petitioner as a necessary consequence and corollary of declaring the Will null and void, the said order too cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 23rd of December, 2013 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 15. It is made clear that quashing of impugned order dated 23rd of December, 2013 shall not be an impediment for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 16. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.