- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. M. PRIYANKA W/O. LATE K.M. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.3, KARIOBANAHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 073 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 009 2. SMT. SOWBHAGYA ALIAS BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE MALLESHAIAH ALIAS MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SRI. K.M. GANGADHARA S/O LATE MALLESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.14, KARIVOBANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 BENGALURU - 560 073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. NAGARAJ K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE ORDERS IN MSC.CR.NO.76/2019-20 DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question an order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.MSC/CR/76/2019-20 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act, 2007’). 2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had executed a release deed dated 17.10.2018 in favour of the husband of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 petitioner concerning the properties of the family namely land bearing Sy.Nos.1/7, 30/2, 123/2, 16 and a house property situated at Kariobanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Taluk. The said release deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dasanpura as Document No.DSP-1-03725-2018-19 dated 17.10.2018. The husband of the petitioner died on 27.02.2019. 3. The petitioner contends that her father-in-law had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2 on 16.08.2006 and conveyed the property bearing Site No.3. The respondent No.2 built a house over the aforesaid property in the year 2007 and she is in possession of the same. She claims that after the death of husband of the respondent No.2, she and her family members are residing in the aforesaid property. 4. (i) The respondent No.2 thereafter filed a petition before the respondent No.1 alleging that she was dependent on her son i.e., the husband of the petitioner and that she was thrown out of the house after his death. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.1 and filed detailed statement of objection contending that the respondent No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 had sufficient means, as she owned 08 houses which she had given them on rent and was collecting huge amounts as rent. (ii) She also informed the respondent No.1 that her husband had derived the properties in terms of a release deed dated 17.10.2018. She also brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that the respondent No.2 had executed corresponding release deeds in favour of her sons and daughters and all of them had in turn executed release deed in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of 08 houses which were generating rent. She contended that the respondent No.2 without disclosing the said facts had illegally challenged the release deed executed by her in favour of the husband of the petitioner. (iii) She also contended that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether the release deed was executed fraudulently or whether the respondent No.2 was tricked into executing such a release deed. (iv) She contends that the release deed dated 17.10.2018 was not only executed by respondent No.2 but also her two daughters named Smt. M.Renuka and M. Jayamala and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 son Sri. K.M.Gangadhar. Therefore, she contended that the release deed could not be questioned only by the respondent No.2 and could not be cancelled at her instance. 5. The respondent No.1 after considering the contentions of respondent No.2 and the petitioner allowed the petition in terms of the impugned order and directed cancellation of the release deed dated 17.10.2018 and also directed Tahsildar to take steps to intimate the order to the sub-registrar and request him to cancel the registration of release deed and to take steps to restore the possession of the property to the respondent No.2 with police help. The petitioner was also directed to deliver up the original title deeds pertaining to the schedule properties to the respondent No.2. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the release deed was executed by the respondent No.2 not only in favour of the husband of the petitioner but also in favour of her other son and daughters. He contends that consequent to such release deed, another release deed dated 17.10.2018 was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 executed by the daughters in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the property bearing site No.7 out of assessment No.26 of Nelagadaranahalli. He contends that the respondent No.2 without disclosing these facts had selectively filed a petition under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 to set at nought the release deed that was lawfully executed. He contends that the respondent No.1 had no authority in law to entertain the dispute of the respondent No.2 and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner who is the daughter-in-law is liable in law to take care of the needs and necessities of the respondent No.2 and since the respondent No.2 is driven out of the house, the respondent No.2 is entitled to set at nought the release deed executed in favour of the husband of the petitioner and also re-claim back the possession of the property. 9. It is now well settled that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan dixit and others – Civil Appeal No.10927/2024 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 and Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and Anr. – Civil Appeal No.174/2021 that the authority under the Act, 2007 would be clothed with the jurisdiction to consider a case under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 only if:- (i) The transfer is made after the commencement of Act; (ii) When there is an obligation on the beneficiary of the transferee to maintain the parent or senior Citizen. (iii) The Act, 2007 is therefore a special enactment conferring jurisdiction on the respondent No.1 in particular circumstances to exercise jurisdiction so as to protect the interest of parents and senior citizens. 10. In the case on hand the release deed was executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 17.10.2018. This was not a transfer by the respondent No.2 but was a recognition of a right of the petitioner’s husband in respect of the property. The respondent No.2 was also the beneficiary of a release deed dated 17.10.2018, in terms of which she derived a property that belonged to the family. The respondent No.2 who is present in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 person, did not dispute the fact that she is in possession of 07 houses which were constructed on the property which was conveyed to her by her husband under a power of attorney dated 16.08.2006. She also accepted the fact that the said houses were let out on rent and that she and her other son were collecting the rent. 11. A perusal of the release deed dated 17.10.2018 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner’s husband shows that there was no corresponding obligation on the part of the petitioner’s husband to maintain the respondent No.2. On the contrary, it shows that all the members of the family had amicably resolved to partition the properties of the family which led to the execution of release deeds dated 17.10.2018 by respondent No.2 in favour of her other son and daughters. Therefore, the respondent No.1 should not have entertained the petition filed by respondent No.2 alone for cancellation of the release deed. Even otherwise, the respondent No.2 has other children on whom she can depend on and therefore the respondent No.1 had no authority in law to entertain a dispute raised by the respondent No.2 and set at - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 nought a lawful release deed dated 17.10.2018 in favour of the husband of the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed. 13. Consequently, all revenue entries that earlier stood in the name of the husband of the petitioner shall be restored back. It is however open for the respondent No.2 to approach the competent Civil Court if she is entitled to any share in the property of her son who is stated to have died intestate. 14. Before parting from the case, this Court has noticed that respondent No.1 has casually considered the case and was clearly oblivious of the purport of the Act, 2007. He did not peruse the release deed dated 17.10.2018 to check whether there was any corresponding obligation that the husband of petitioner had to maintain respondent No.2. Besides this, a release deed was not a transfer but was document relinquishing undivided right so as to recognize the absolute right of the transferee who too has an undivided right. The respondent No.1 therefore must have been slow in considering the case of the respondent No.2. Nonetheless, he has proceeded without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 exercising caution to cancel a document executed in favour of the petitioner’s husband not only by respondent No.2 but also her other son and daughters and has also directed restoration of the possession unmindful of the fact that the husband of the petitioner also had a share in the property. This conduct of respondent No.1 is unbecoming of an officer who is conferred with quasi judicial functions under the Act, 2007. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is warned henceforth not to casually consider applications filed under Section 23 of the Act, 2007. 15. Any observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of trial court deciding the suit on merits. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38541 WP No. 5202 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SMT M PRIYANKA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS] 03.11.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' In paragraph No.13 of the order dated 24.09.2025, the words 'husband of the petitioner' appearing in the second line shall be read as 'petitioner.' This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 24.09.2025. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1