- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 946 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE S.R. SAMPATHU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDESH C.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJATH H.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VIVEK JAIN S/O JNANCHAN JAIN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3140, 6TH CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HAVING OFFICE AT VIJAYA NAGAR Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 562 159 3. THE PRESIDENT AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SENIOR CITIZEN TRIBUNAL RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA - 562 159 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 4. SRI C.S. HARSHA S/O SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT 4TH BLOCK 5TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDANAGARA CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 5. SRI C.S. THILAK S/O SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING NEAR MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE AND DIVYA NIKETHAN SCHOOL CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (SRI P.R. NARENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1, SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2 & 3 SRI SATYANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.14704/2021 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant [hereafter also referred to as 'the father'] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14704/2021 (GM-RES). The said petition was filed by respondent No.1 [hereafter ‘the Purchaser’] assailing an order dated 07.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 [the Tribunal] cancelling the Gift Deed dated 20.06.2019 [hereafter ‘the gift deed’] executed by the father in favour of respondent No.4 [hereafter also referred to as 'the son'] and the subsequent sale deed dated 19.12.2019 executed in favour of the Purchaser. 2. The learned Single Judge set aside the Tribunal's order cancelling the gift deed. However, directed the son to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the father. 3. The father contends that under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [the Act], the gift deed executed in favour of his son is void and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 consequently, the sale of the subject property by the son in favour of the Purchaser is also liable to be set aside. Prefatory facts 4. The appellant (father) was the absolute owner of a property measuring 78.99 sq. mts. bearing Municipal Khaneshumari No.1345/1177/1178, presently having No.1466, Property I.D No.22-1-5-100, located at M.G.Road, Block No.1, Channapatna Town, Ramanagara District [hereafter, 'the subject property']. The appellant had gifted the said property to his wife Smt.Kalavathi in terms of a registered gift deed dated 15.03.2000. 5. During her lifetime, Smt.Kalavathi had executed a mortgage deed dated 07.11.2012 in favour of State Bank of India as security for the loan advanced by the said Bank. 6. Smt.Kalavathi expired on 29.10.2015. After the demise of Smt.Kalavathi, the father executed the Gift Deed dated 20.06.2019 in favour of the son (respondent No.4). Thereafter, respondent No.5 (who is the brother of respondent No.4 and the appellant's another son) executed a release deed relinquishing all his rights, title and interests in the subject property in favour of the son. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 Thereafter, the son paid an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to State Bank of India for discharging the loan availed by his mother and the State Bank of India executed the Discharge Deed dated 12.11.2019 in his favour. Thus, the son became the owner of the subject property free from all encumbrances. 7. Thereafter, the son sold the property in favour of the Purchaser in terms of Sale Deed dated 19.12.2019. The son claims that he had received a sum of Rs.40,87,000/- as sale consideration and out of the aforesaid sum, he had deposited Rs.15,00,000/- with LIC which yields an annuity of Rs 10,000 per month in favour of the father. 8. Respondent No.5 had also executed a release deed for a consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-, out of the said amount, sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by cheques and the balance of Rs.17,00,000/- was on account of taking over the loans availed by respondent No.5, which the son states have since been discharged. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the son had made the aforesaid payments: Rs. 19,00,000/- to State - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 Bank of India; Rs.15,00,000/- deposited with LIC; and Rs.19,50,000/- paid as consideration for relinquishment of rights and interests in the subject property to respondent No.5. Thus, according to the son, he has paid total amount of Rs.53,50,000/- including Rs.15,00,000/- deposited with LIC. 10. The appellant alleges that he had been subjected to mental and physical harassment and had executed the Gift Deed dated 20.06.2019 in favour of the son with a condition that he would take care of his basic amenities and physical needs with love and affection. He further alleged that the son was not taking care of his needs and consequently, the father approached the Senior Citizen Helpline Centre, Ramanagar District on 18.02.2020 alleging that his sons (respondent Nos.4 and 5) had got the subject property transferred to their name fraudlently and thereafter, sold the same to the Purchaser. He alleged that they were not looking after him and had accordingly moved an application under the Act. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal found that the appellant was a senior citizen and that his two sons (respondent Nos.4 and 5) had not provided him basic amenities. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed the order cancelling the gift deed as well as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2019 in favour of the Purchaser. Aggrieved by the same, the Purchaser preferred the writ petition, being W.P No.14704/2021, which was allowed by the impugned order. Reasons and conclusion 11. The learned Single Judge had noted that the gift deed executed by the father in favour of the son (gift deed dated 20.06.2019) did not contain any recital to the effect that the same was on a condition that the son would provide any amenities or cater to the needs of the father. The learned Single Judge held that the gift deed was unconditional and therefore, the Tribunal could not cancel the same. 12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act. The same is set out below: "23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances ‒ (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part , thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right. (3) If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5." 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is not necessary that the gift deed must contain any specific condition requiring the transferee to provide any basic amenities and take care of the physical requirements of the transferor. He submitted that the same is implicit. 14. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 and on the strength of the said decision rejected the said contention. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had noted the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and had observed as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 "13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no. 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub- section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.” 15. The said decision was followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, Writ Appeal No.573/2022 decided on 17.03.2023. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 16. The learned Single Judge had also noted the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Subhashini v. District Collector: 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4080 [FB]. The Kerala High Court had concluded as under: "52. We conclude by answering the reference, that the condition as required under Section 23(1) for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous transfer. It is the jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will have to look into before invoking Section 23(1) and proceeding on a summary enquiry. We answer the reference agreeing with the decision in W.A. No. 2012 of 2012 dated 28.11.2012 [Malukutty Ponnarassery v. P. Rajan Ponnarassery]. We find Shabeen Martin v. Muriel [2016 (5) KHC 603] and Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2018 KHC 4655 = (2013) 3 KLT 1082] to be wrongly decided. We approve Radhamani v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KHC 9] which had a recital in the document akin to that required under Section 23(1)." 17. The learned Single Judge had also noticed that the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner: (2021) 15 SCC 730 and taken a different view. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 18. We are of the view that in the given facts of this case, it is not necessary to examine whether the gift deed was executed with any attendant condition as claimed by the appellant. We say so because, it is clear that the appellant has been compensated to an extent exceeding his interest in the subject property, from the sale proceeds. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant cannot seek cancellation of the same. 19. It is material to note that the appellant had executed the gift deed dated 15.03.2000 in favour of his wife Smt. Kalavathi, who expired on 29.10.2015. She had mortgaged the subject property to State Bank of India against financial assistance extended to her. After her demise, the son had paid a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to the State Bank of India for discharging the loan availed by Smt.Kalavathi and for release of the subject property in his favour. 20. The assumption that the appellant had once again became the absolute owner of the subject property after the demise of his wife is plainly erroneous. At best, he would have a share in the subject property as his wife had expired intestate. It is also not disputed that the subject property was sold to the Purchaser at a consideration of Rs.40,87,000/-. Thus, the son had, in effect, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 received a value of Rs.21,87,000/- after accounting for the amount paid by him to secure the release of the subject property from the State Bank of India ( the sale consideration less the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- paid for seeking release of the subject property from State Bank of India). 21. As noted earlier, the son had also secured release of the subject property from his brother (respondent No.5) for relinquishment of any rights, title or interest in the subject property for consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-. If the said amount is considered, the benefit received by the son from the sale proceeds would stand considerably reduced to Rs.2,37,000/-. As against the said benefit, the son had made a deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- with LIC. It is not disputed that the appellant has been receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the said deposit. In the given facts, we are unable to accept that the appellant can claim cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of the son or the further sale deed in favour of the Purchaser. Viewed in the perspective of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be readily accepted that the gift deed of the subject property could not be deemed to be a fraudulent transfer. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42936-DB WA No. 946 of 2024 22. Before concluding, we may also note that the learned Single Judge had directed the son to pay an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- per month over and above Rs.10,000/- which the appellant receives from LIC against the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-. The father is also granted liberty to seek enhanced maintenance (if a need arises) before the Assistant Commissioner. 23. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 24. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 25. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16