Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 400 (PNJ)

Tarsem Singh v. Paramjit Kaur

2021-02-18

RUN MONGA

body2021
ORDER Arun Monga, J. (Oral). - Petition herein is, inter alia, for setting aside an order dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Patiala, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents/ plaintiffs (daughters) somehow succeeded in getting the transfer deed in their favour from their late father. 3. Later on, Hardaman Singh (deceased father) filed an application on 05.09.2019 under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala. Respondents appeared in the Court of Maintenance Tribunal-cum-SDM Patiala and contested the case. 4. Late Hardaman Singh was very annoyed with the attitude of his daughters/respondents. He had stated that the sale/transfer deeds executed by him were null and void and requested for setting aside the same. Learned counsel for petitioners relies on copy of statement of Hardaman Singh (Annexure P-l), in support of his aforesaid contentions. 6. However, during pendency of the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-SDM Patiala, Hardaman Singh died on 08.01.2020. 7. The petitioners thereafter represented deceased Hardaman Singh as his legal heirs and proceedings continued despite death of the senior citizen, who had originally invoked the proceedings for his protection, under the Act, ibid. 8. Subsequently, the respondents (sisters) compromised the matter with their brothers/petitioners before the Tribunal, vide a written compromise deed dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P-2). 9. However, the respondents/daughters later on backed out from the compromise and instead filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged compromise dated 30.01.2020 executed between the parties is null and void along with relief of permanent injunction. Averments in the plaint, inter alia, are that compromise deed 30.01.2020, allegedly executed between the parties, after the death of Hardaman Singh, is illegal, null and void. Same is not binding on the plaintiffs/daughters, per Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, having being executed under undue influence and force. Alleged compromise agreement/ contract is thus pleaded to be unconscionable and not acceptable to the respondents herein and, in any case, being without consideration and a non-registered document has no value in the eyes of law. 10. Same is not binding on the plaintiffs/daughters, per Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, having being executed under undue influence and force. Alleged compromise agreement/ contract is thus pleaded to be unconscionable and not acceptable to the respondents herein and, in any case, being without consideration and a non-registered document has no value in the eyes of law. 10. It was in this background that petitioners filed an application for rejection of plaint and pleaded that suit in question is not maintainable as the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit as per provisions of Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and the compromise was validly executed. 11. Learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.01.2021. Hence, the revision petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the case file. 13. I am unable to dissuade myself from reasoning given by the trial Court in the order impugned herein. No grounds are made out to interfere. 14. Other reasons apart, it seems that once Tribunal had become functus officio, after the death of senior citizen, it had no jurisdiction to continue with proceedings under the Act, ibid. Any order by the tribunal, qua compromise between two sets of legal heirs, and/or otherwise touching on the merits of case, after the death of senior citizen, is non est. 15. Be that as it may, learned trial Court has also rightly observed as below:- "....order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Ld. Court of SDM, Patiala is based on the compromise dated 30.01.2020 does not bring the compromise within the purview of Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 so as to bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Further the contention of counsel for the defendant that the compromise was validly executed and consequent citation of facts in support of same cannot be gone into at this stage as the validity of the compromise dated 30.01.2020 is a matter of evidence. " 16. Dismissed.17. Since the main case is dismissed, pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.