- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH 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. 1487 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIVENKATAYYA S/O. GANGATHIMMAYA-URF-THIMMAYYA @ BULLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE, VENKATAYANAPALYA, KASABA HOBALI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B M HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE PRESIDENT OF SENIOR CITIZEN, MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562 159. 2. SRI. GANGATHIMMAYYA-URF-THIMMAYYA @ BULLAYYA S/O. LATE BYLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT BYJAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 1275/2020, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL, AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.7.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1275 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 [The Assistant Commissioner, The President of Senior Citizen, Management Tribunal, Ramanagara Sub-Division, Ramanagara]. The said order was passed pursuant to a complaint made by respondent No.2 (The Senior Citizen) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [hereafter 'the Act'] claiming possession of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 residential house [hereafter ‘the residential house in question’] as well as payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The residential house in question was constructed by respondent No.2 on land measuring 40x50 feet in Byjapura village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. He had executed a gift deed dated 14.08.2018 gifting the residential house in question to his wife and his daughter. The appellant is the elder son of respondent No.2 (Bullayya) and is also residing in the residential house in question. 2. It is respondent No.2's case that the appellant was not maintaining the family and was not taking care of him. He also alleged that it has become difficult to live peacefully with the appellant. Respondent no.2 had, accordingly, sought for eviction of the appellant from the residential house in question. The Senior Citizens Helpline Center had also furnished a house visit report dated 12.06.2019 confirming that the appellant had not provided any basic necessities to his father (respondent no.2). In view of the above, respondent No.1 had passed an order directing the appellant to hand over possession of the residential house in question located in Byjapura village to the complainant within a period of 15 days. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed a writ petition being W.P.No.1275/2020. which was rejected by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petition filed by respondent No.2 under Section 23 of the Act was not maintainable as respondent No.2 was not the owner of the residential house in question. He submits that the subject property was gifted by respondent No.2 to his daughter and wife by a registered gift deed dated 14.08.2018 and, therefore, could not claim any rights in the residential house in question. He further submits that a civil suit regarding the partition of various properties in OS No.31/2019 is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, Ramnagara District and the rights of various family members in the family properties is yet to be determined. 5. He also submits that respondent No.2 was involved in a road accident on 6.12.2016 and had suffered a head injury. He submits that respondent No.2 remains disoriented and therefore, the complaint ought not to have been entertained. He also contends - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 that the complaint made by respondent no. 2 is a proxy complaint instituted by respondent No.2's daughter. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. It is material to note that the import of the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 is limited. It does not decide any question as to the title of the residential house in question. It only directs the appellant to hand over possession of the residential house in question in order to ensure the well-being of the appellant's father (respondent No.2), who is admittedly residing in there. Undisputedly, respondent no. 2 is not a trespasser in the residential house in question. 8. The learned Single judge has also noted that the parties are at liberty to agitate their rights relating to the subject property in the pending suit. 9. We find no fault with the decision of the learned Single judge in declining to interfere with the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1. There is no dispute that the appellant is not the owner of the residential house in question and the same was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 owned by his father (respondent No.2). Whilst it is stated that he had gifted the residential house in question to his wife and daughter, the said persons have not raised any objection regarding respondent no.2 residing in the house in question. 10. The Act has been enacted to ensure that the senior citizens do not suffer any abuse and are entitled to live peacefully in the evening years of their life. The order dated 18.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 is clearly directed in ensuring the same. The contention that respondent No.2 cannot maintain the complaint as the subject property was gifted by him is unsubstantial. 11. According to the appellant, respondent No.2 was the owner of the subject property and the same was gifted out of love and affection. It is understandable that the said gift would have been made with an understanding that respondent No.2 would continue to live in the said premises. However, it is not necessary to examine this aspect in any detail as respondent No.2's daughter has not initiated any proceedings for evicting respondent No.2 and he is, admittedly, residing in the residential house in question. Even if it is assumed that his occupation is as a gratuitous licensee, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39670-DB WA No. 1487 of 2025 respondent No.2 would have a right to evict the appellant in order to live peacefully in the subject property. 12. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32