- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36949 WP No. 13070 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13070 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMALAKSHMI W/O. JITENDRA. H, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.E-13, COTTNET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. B C VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE PRESIDENT, THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, NO.200 (S), 2ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. SMT. RUKMINI @ SHASHIKALA W/O. LATE PARTHA SARATHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, COTTNET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M SRINIVASA KUMAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE NO. MSC/CR/59/2017-18 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36949 WP No. 13070 of 2018 RESPONDENT AND AFTER PERUSAL TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 5.3.2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.MSC/CR/59/2017-18 dated 05.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 under the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Acts, 2007. 2. The respondent No.2 claimed to be a joint owner of property bearing No.13, Old Nos.191, 192, 193 and 194 (PID No.29-1-191, 29-1-192-29-1-193, 29-1-194) situated in Cotton pet Main Road, Bangalore under a Will dated 28.02.1987 executed by her mother-in-law. She claimed that she was residing in the said house. She claimed that her mother-in-law died on 18.08.2003 and hence, she inherited the property along with the petitioner in equal shares. She claimed that on 30.10.2017 she locked the house and left her residence to visit her younger brother. When she returned on the same day, she was shocked to see that the lock was broken and the petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36949 WP No. 13070 of 2018 had occupied the house. She immediately approached the jurisdictional police and sought protection. The police registered a case in Crime No.239/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504 read with Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 8IPC9 for short). Thereafter, the respondent No.2 approached the respondent No.1 requesting them to secure back the possession of her property and protect her from the petitioner and her supporters. The respondent No.1 after hearing the petitioner, passed an order dated 05.03.2018, directing the petitioner herein to vacate the premises and hand over physical possession to the respondent No.2. The jurisdictional Tahsildar was directed to take steps to implement the order. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 was stayed. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has disposed off her property in terms of a sale deed dated 08.09.2023. He also contends that the respondent No.2 had handed over actual vacant physical possession of the scheduled property to the purchaser. He - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36949 WP No. 13070 of 2018 therefore contends that the impugned order stands abated and cannot be given effect to and the benefit of the impugned order cannot trickle down to the purchasers of the respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact that the respondent No.2 had disposed off the property belonging to her in terms of a sale deed dated 08.09.2023. He however contends that the respondent No.2 notwithstanding the sale deed continues to occupy the property. 5. In view of the admitted position that the respondent No.2 had alienated her share of the property in question, the impugned order is now not enforceable and the proceedings before the respondent No.1 has abated. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be given effect to. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. It is declared that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 has abated and therefore - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36949 WP No. 13070 of 2018 cannot be given effect to and is unenforceable in the eyes of law. In view of the alienation of the property in question by the respondent No.2, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 which ended in passing the impugned order shall be deemed to have abated. iii. It is needless to mention that the respondent No.2 may pursue any other remedy available to her before the appropriate civil Court in accordance with law, to challenge the alleged gift deed executed by the petitioner herein as the power of attorney of the respondent No.2. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25