- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105854 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K.MURALIDHAR, S/O. K.VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE (RETD), 12TH WARD, 1ST CROSS, DEVI NAGAR, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE-583201. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. 3. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. 4. SRI. K.VITTAL RAO, S/O. LATE K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED ISR EMPLOYEE, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.19 10:11:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 C/O. K.NARASIMHA MURTHY, 12TH WARD, DEVI NAGAR, CITTAWADAGI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. 5. SRI. K.NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O. K. VITTAL RAO, 12TH WARD, DEVI NAGAR, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 6. SRI. K.KESHAVA MURTHY S/O. K.VITTAL RAO, OCC: EMPLOYEE OF KALYANI, STEELS, PRASHANTH NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 AND R3 SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) (NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.11.2022 BEARING NO.KAM.HI.NA. APPEALU.09.2022-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED MODIFIED ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 BEARING NO.KAM.HI.NA.APPEALU.09.2022-23 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E BOTH PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1 in No.Kam.Hi.Na.Appeal:09:2022- 23 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’). 2. Briefly stated, the facts case are that respondent No.4, who is the father of the petitioner, had executed a gift deed dated 23.03.2006 conveying an open site bearing No.3, Assessment No.15074/32 formed in Sy.No.227 and lying at Chittawadgi, 12th Ward, Devi Nagara, Hosapete Taluk of Vijayanagar District. The petitioner claims that after execution of the gift deed, he constructed a building over the said property. Long thereafter, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings against the petitioner before respondent No.1 under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. The petitioner contested the said proceedings and contended inter alia that respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 No.1 cannot go into the question whether the gift deed executed by respondent No.4 was valid or not. Nonetheless, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order annulling the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, apparently in exercise of the power under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings before respondent No.1 was not maintainable in view of the express language contained in Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which conferred power on respondent No.1 to deal with gifts of properties executed after the commencement of Act of 2007. He contends that the gift deed in question was executed on 23.03.2006 and therefore, respondent No.1 had no power to entertain the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act. He also contends that respondent No.4 has filed a suit in O.S. No.59/2022 for perpetual injunction. He contends that respondent No.4 is, therefore, bound to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs and not to knock the doors of respondent No.1. Besides, he contends that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 petitioner has done something in furtherance of gift deed such as putting up a construction over the property, and therefore, at this point in time, respondent No.1 cannot annul the gift deed as the possession of property continues with the petitioner and respondent No.1 has no authority in law to restore possession to respondent No.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi1. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial legislation meant to protect the interest of the senior citizens and parents. He contends that respondent No.4 had executed gift deed in question with a fond hope that the petitioner would take care of respondent No.4. However, after execution of the gift deed, the petitioner has revealed his true colours and he is neither maintaining nor looking after respondent No.4. He, therefore, contends that notwithstanding the language contained in Section 23 of 2007 Act, this Court should exercise powers to further the object of the Act namely to protect the interest of 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 the senior citizens and parents. He contends that even if there is no condition mentioned in the gift deed that the donee has to maintain, support and look after the parents, it has to be read into the gift deed and if a senior citizen or a parent approaches respondent No.1 complaining that the donee is not carrying on his responsibilities, the donor is entitled to take out proceedings to annul the gift deed. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors2. Thus, he contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the Act of 2007 confers power on respondent No.1 to set aside the gift deed executed by parents if the beneficiaries of the gift deed are not taking care. He contends that, notwithstanding the limitation prescribed in Section 23 of the Act of 2007, respondent No.1 is empowered 2 Civil Appeal No.10927/2024, Disposed of on 02.01.2025 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 to look into the gift deed executed even prior to coming into force of the Act of 2007. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents. 7. In the case on hand, respondent No.4 had executed a gift deed on 23.03.2006 conveying the property aforestated to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, had developed the property by putting up a construction thereon. Long thereafter, i.e., on 15.06.2022, respondent No.4 submitted a request in writing before respondent No.1 to cancel the gift deed on the ground that the petitioner had assured him that he would take care of his needs and necessities but later, he and his wife were thrown out of the house. Respondent No.1, therefore, initiated proceedings under the Act of 2007 to annul the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 “23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances 1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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 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.” 8. A plain reading of the above indicates that it confers powers on respondent No.1 to deal with gifts or written documents executed by the senior citizen/parents after - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 commencement of the Act, 2007 that too when such gift is subject to the condition that the donee shall meet the needs and necessities of the parents/senior citizen. In the instant case, the transfer was much prior to the Act of 2007 coming into force and there was apparently, no reason mentioned in the gift deed which obligated the petitioner to look after respondent No.4. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara (supra) has considered the aforesaid questions and has held as follows: “12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: a. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. 13. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. 14. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 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.” 9. In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 was not competent in law to exercise power under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed as one without authority of law. However, the petitioner cannot escape from one his obligation to maintain the respondent No.4 and his wife till their lifetime. Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.4 has no known source of income to meet his needs and necessities, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- every month from the date of filing this petition. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. iii) However, the petitioner shall pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) every - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8697 WP No. 105854 of 2022 month to the petitioner with effect from the date of filing this petition. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to pay, the maintenance as stated above every month and the arrears within three months from today, the same shall be treated as charge on the property gifted to him under the gift deed dated 23.03.2006. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS List No.: 38 Sl No.: 12