MANJIT KAUR vs HARMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — LPA/1271/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010632152026

Filing Number

LPA/22525/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

LPA/1271/2026

Registration Date

01-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Category

1.15 - LPA GENERAL MISC. ( 339 )

Judicial Branch

LPA SECTION

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANJIT KAUR

    Adv. G.S.KAURA

  2. 2.MANJIT KAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

  2. 2.MANJIT KAUR

  3. 3.DY COMMISISONER

  4. 4.SDM CUM PO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,mr. Justice Deepak ManchandaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Manjit Kaur's appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that set aside a Tribunal's direction to revert property back to her under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court found that Section 23 of the 2007 Act requires two conditions: a maintenance clause in the transfer deed and proof of its breach. Since no such clause existed in the original transfer and the appellant failed to prove lack of maintenance (having herself lived in Austria with the respondent and received Austrian Government pension), the property reversion was correctly denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. LPA/1271/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Manjit Kaur's appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that set aside a Tribunal's direction to revert property back to her under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court found that Section 23 of the 2007 Act requires two conditions: a maintenance clause in the transfer deed and proof of its breach. Since no such clause existed in the original transfer and the appellant failed to prove lack of maintenance (having herself lived in Austria with the respondent and received Austrian Government pension), the property reversion was correctly denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case