Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Grandson’s Property Rights, Warns Against Misuse of Senior Citizens Act in Family Disputes

Case Name: Chattan Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali & Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CWP-12664-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed by senior citizen Chattan Singh seeking cancellation of a property transfer deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held that the proceedings were a disguised attempt to settle a family property dispute under the garb of senior citizen welfare. The Court cautioned that Section 23 cannot be invoked for inter-se family property settlements and emphasized that such misuse undermines the legislative intent of the Act.

Summary: The petitioner, a senior citizen, had transferred land through Wasika No.4352 dated January 9, 2017, to his grandsons (respondents No.3–5) on the condition that they would maintain him. Later alleging neglect, he approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the deed. The Tribunal initially granted his plea, but the Appellate Authority remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. On reconsideration, the Tribunal declined to cancel the transfer but granted maintenance of ₹24,000 per month, payable jointly by all three grandsons. Dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, insisting that violation of maintenance obligations automatically invalidates the property transfer.

Justice Tiwari noted that the allegations against respondent No.5 (grandson) were vague and unsupported by evidence. The Court observed that respondents No.3 and 4 had voluntarily expressed willingness to surrender their share in the property, while respondent No.5 continued to maintain the petitioner and pay ₹8,000 monthly as directed by the Tribunal. Finding no proof of neglect, the Court held that the property dispute could not be cloaked as a senior-citizen grievance. It further deprecated the growing trend of invoking the Senior Citizens Act to settle inheritance disputes, warning that such misuse distorts the statute’s welfare objective.

Decision: The Court declined to cancel the transfer deed in favour of respondent No.5, affirming his ownership and maintenance obligations. It ordered the shares of respondents No.3 and 4 to revert to the petitioner as per their voluntary statements. The petition was dismissed with a caution that Section 23 of the 2007 Act cannot be misused to reopen family property transactions.