High Court invalidates heirs' sale tactic to delay return of sr citizen's assets

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 27

In a significant ruling aimed at expediting the return of assets to the elderly left unsupported by their heirs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored that the establishment of third-party rights by them through subsequent sale of properties will not impede efforts to assist the aged under the provisions of the Senior Citizens’ Act.

land transfer case

• The High Court ruling came in a case where a senior citizen executed a transfer deed in June 2016 in favour of his four sons
• Justice Vikas Bahl took note of fact that one of the sons had transferred the land on May 23, 2018, in favour of his child and wife
• The transfer by respondent-son was hit by the principle of lis pendens — a Latin term meaning “pending litigation”

The verdict by Justice Vikas Bahl is significant as it addresses situations where children, having received properties from the elderly, attempt to prolong legal processes by selling the assets and creating third-party rights in favour of buyers. This tactic is employed during the pendency of proceedings before the tribunals under the Senior Citizens’ Act.

The ruling came in a case where a senior citizen executed a transfer deed in June 2016 in favour of his four sons. Justice Bahl observed an appellate tribunal “rightly” concluded that his sons were not taking care and providing basic needs of life after getting the property transferred in their name.

Justice Bahl also took note of fact that one of the sons had transferred the land vide transfer deed dated May 23, 2018, in favour of his child and wife –– now petitioners before the high court. It was argued that they had an independent right to be heard.

Justice Bahl asserted the application under the Act was filed on April 20, 2018, by the senior citizen. The transfer by respondent-son in favour of his wife and child, dated May 23, 2018, was hit by the principle of lis pendens –– a Latin term meaning “pending litigation”.

Justice Bahl observed the petitioners would sink and swim with the respondent-son. Once the respondent was unsuccessful after contesting the case, it would not be open to the petitioners to raise an independent plea that they should have been given an opportunity of hearing.

“The petitioners are the son and wife of respondent-son. Apparently the transfer has been made in favour of the petitioners after the institution of the proceedings by the senior citizen against the respondent and his other sons in order to delay the fruits of the litigation, which may ensue to him on the culmination of the same”.

Justice Bahl added once the appellate tribunal cancelled the initial transfer deed by the senior citizen and the order was in consonance with Section 23 of the Senior Citizens’ Act, any subsequent transfer made by respondent-son –– who was a party to the proceedings and during the pendency of the proceedings –– would consequently stand set aside. Justice Bahl added a purchase was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens in case a person purchased suit property during the pendency of a case. He could at best raise pleas available to the seller in whose shoes he stepped into.