Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 347 (PNJ)

Bharat Sachdeva @ Pankaj v. Prem Lata

2022-02-15

FATEH DEEP SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT Fateh Deep Singh, J. - CM-14254-CII-2021 1. In view of the averments made in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed. Documents annexed therewith are taken on record. 2. CM stands disposed off. 3. The present revision petition by petitioners-Bharat Sachdeva @ Pankaj and his wife Aarti Sachdeva filed against respondent No.1-Prem Lata, widowed mother of petitioner No.1, who happens to be a senior citizen and had initially invoked the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Jagadhari, under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short 'the Act'). In her invocation, the petitioner had sought handing over the vacant actual and physical possession of a room with attached latrine-bathroom on the ground floor and roof of residential house duly described and depicted in the petition. The trial Court vide order dated 02.05.2017 dismissed the application directing her to approach the competent Court seeking eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from the house. Aggrieved over this, Prem Lata filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar. It is vide order dated 11.10.2017, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal whereby ordering that the property be transferred back in favour of Prem Lata. It is this finding which is subject matter of assailment. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Admittedly, the property in question is the ownership of the widowed mother-Prem Lata by virtue of inheritance and the opposite party happens to be her grown up married son and daughter-in-law. 6. It is during the course of time, the son and the daughterin-law managed to persuade the widowed mother and on the plea of installing a factory got registered a deed dated 21.01.2013 in their favour. It is subsequent thereto, the petitioners started harassing and humiliating the widowed aged mother which led to the filing of the proceedings. Though, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. It is subsequent thereto, the petitioners started harassing and humiliating the widowed aged mother which led to the filing of the proceedings. Though, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate has sought to place reliance upon judgments titled as 'Jagtrnieei Kaur Pannu versus Ranjit Kaur Pannu' 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 82; 'Sarabift Kaur versus District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Barnala and others' 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 433; 'Gurilev Singh versus State of Punjab and others' 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 945; 'Harvinder Kaur Bawa versus The Appellate Tribunal, Panchkula and others' 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 853; 'Kuldip Kaur versus Kabal Singh' Civil Revision No.7869 of 2016 and 'Smt. S Vanitha versus The Deputy Commissoner Bengaluru Urban District and others' 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 177 to drive home the point that since the daughter-in-law by virtue of her relationship is having a right in the shared house and, therefore, she cannot be thrown out of the same which is stoutly opposed on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1 who has sought support from citing the judgments titled as 'Promil Tomar and others versus State of Haryana and others' CWP-20072-2013; and 'Gurdeep Singh versus Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Samana' CWP-13121 of 2016. 7. Appreciating the submissions, the Act is a special Legislation for protecting the interests of senior citizens thereby, with the aim and object to ensure that the senior citizens are not left to fend for themselves and to prevent destituteness. No doubt, the claim of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has a right by way of shared household but it needs to be ensured any such gift by virtue of a gift deed though is covered under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the present Act being a special Legislation has a overriding effect over the Domestic Violence Act. This Court in Promil Tomar and others versus State of Haryana and others' CWP-20072-2013; and 'Gurdeep Singh versus Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Samana' CWP-13121 of 2016 has gone into details. The property in question admittedly was owned by the father of the petitioners and husband of Prem Lata. This Court in Promil Tomar and others versus State of Haryana and others' CWP-20072-2013; and 'Gurdeep Singh versus Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Samana' CWP-13121 of 2016 has gone into details. The property in question admittedly was owned by the father of the petitioners and husband of Prem Lata. It is by virtue of a Will dated 13.02.1990 upon death of her husband on 20.08.1993, the property which is a house in question was inherited by Prem Lata as is there in the pleadings of the parties, it is purely on the basis of a deed No.9233 dated 21.01.2013, the part of the roof has been handed over to the petitioners for opening their factory premises and which certainly cannot overrun the Will in question. Moreover, it is simplicitor a right that has been bestowed upon the children by the lady for the enjoyment of the certain portion of her property which she has inherited from her late husband. 8. The claim of Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners that no appeal lies before the Appellate Authority as has been done by Prem Lata against which the present revision has come about does not impresses the Court much. In view of specific provisions, envisaged under Section 16 of the Act as well as under Rule 17 of the Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 1979. The very object of such special Legislation which is to ward off the social issue of physical and emotional neglect of the aged infirm parents/dependents and even if the petitioners have been handed over possession of a part of this property to run a factory and their total insolence to the needs of the aged infirm widowed mother certainly is a distressing feature which needs to be wiped out to assuage her feelings. 9. Keeping in view the very intent of the Statute and that this Court in the ratio cited above have clearly held that failure of the children to maintain their aged parents by virtue of the Act, empowers the Court to order shifting of the occupants from the property of the respondents. 9. Keeping in view the very intent of the Statute and that this Court in the ratio cited above have clearly held that failure of the children to maintain their aged parents by virtue of the Act, empowers the Court to order shifting of the occupants from the property of the respondents. The Court had gone further by interpreting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act that wherever it is appropriate and the Court deems it so can pass an order under the Act that any such transfer of possession by senior citizen would fall within the ambit of Section 23 (1) of the Act and the Court has ample powers to nullify such a transfer and ensure that possession is handed over to the senior citizen who has come before the Court praying for the relief. It is quite clear from the pleadings before this Court that the petitioners with a malice and ill-will had duped the respondents and managed to take hold over her property on the\ plea of running a factory and, thus, usurped her property and subsequently, are trying to deny the very fruits of her property and leaving her in wilderness. Since, the appellants have refused to look after the respondents and the impugned findings by the Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar has rightly passed the orders and there is no illegality and infirmity in the same which needs to be upheld. 10. The civil revision being without merits stands dismissed.