Rajinder Singh v. Addl Deputy Commissioner Cum Appellant Tribunal And ORS

C.W.P. No. 21325 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.21325-2021 Date of decision: 16.09.2025 Rajinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs.

The Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Roop Nagar and others .... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, with Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J (Oral) 1.

Through the instant petition, a challenge is thrown to the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Roop Nagar, wherethrough, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 22/23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act'), was dismissed.

2.

Succinctly, the petitioner claimed himself to be a senior citizen, aged about 75 years. It was averred in the application that he retired from B.B.M.B. in the year 2004. On 13.10.1989, he purchased a property and spent huge amount for constructing a house thereupon. Respondents No.2 and 3 are son and daughter-inlaw of the petitioner, and they are living in the same house. Since, they were harassing, and not maintaining the petitioner, he disowned them from his movable and immovable property by way of publication in the newspaper. Later on, respondents No.2 and 3, begged pardon from the petitioner, and thereafter, he allowed them to stay in the house again.

Subsequently, they started threatening the petitioner for transferring the property in their names, which forced him to file an application before the police department against the respondents. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Appellate Tribunal concerned under Section 22/23 of the Act. The respondent caused appearance, and informed the Court that the DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit No.

C.W.P. No. 21325 of 2021 concerned, and through an interim order dated 07.08.2020, the Civil Court concerned has already granted status quo with regard to the property in question. Consequently, the learned Tribunal concerned, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order 31.08.2021.

3.

Today, Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 and informed this Court that cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the instant petition does no arise as petitioner has already transferred the property in the name of his other two sons through a transfer deed dated 26.06.2023.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to rebut this contention of learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 5.

In view of the fact that, the petitioner has already transferred the property in question to his other children, therefore, the cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the application under Sections 22/23 of the Act, does not survive.

6.

In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as no cause of action survives. However, liberty is extended to the petitioner that in case submissions of the respondents qua transfer of property is found to be incorrect, he can seek revival of the instant petition by moving apt motion. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 16.09.2025 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.22 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh