- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24295 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAISHEELA W/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 51 YEARS, 2. SRI. H.S. SHIVASWAMY S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 29 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O HUNJANALU, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE CHAIRMAN, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572101 2. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED 80 YEARS, 3. SRI. NAGALINGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED 60 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAMALINGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 AGED 57 YEARS, 5. SRI. I.S. SHANKARLINGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED 55 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/O IDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572223 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. S. NARENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, TUMAKURU SUB- DIVISION, TUMAKURU BEARING NO.PAPOSAM & HIRIYA NA.R.KA.SAM.NO.61/19-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in case bearing No. ¥Á¥ÉÇøÀA ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄ £Á.gÀ.PÁ.¸ÀA:61/19-20 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 2007'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 2. (i) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 was the owner of Sy.No.29/1A measuring 4-23 acres, Sy.No.35/1 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.35/4B measuring 3-14 acres, Sy.No.35/6 measuring 35 guntas, Sy.No.35/8 measuring 1-05 acres situate at Idakanahalli village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. She has four daughters, all of whom are married. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are her sons. The respondent No.2 had effected a division of the aforesaid lands amongst her three sons. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and their names were entered in the revenue records in respect of the properties allotted to their shares. At the partition, the respondent No.2 retained Sy.No.35/2 measuring 2-11 acres as her share and for her maintenance. She thus became the absolute owner of the aforesaid property. As the absolute owner, she executed a gift deed dated 17.05.2017 in favour of respondent No.5 as she was residing with him and he was taking care of her. The respondent No.5 then sold 2-11 acres in Sy.No.35/2 to petitioner No.1 in terms of a sale deed dated 06.06.2018. Likewise, he had executed a sale deed dated 03.07.2018 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.63/2 measuring 1-11 acres in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 favour of the petitioner No.1, which he derived at the family partition amongst the respondent Nos.2 to 5. The petitioner No.1 claims that she is in possession of the aforesaid two survey numbers. (ii) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.5, his wife and son started interfering with their possession which compelled the petitioner No.1 to file O.S.No.204/2019 for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court after considering the case of the petitioner No.1, passed an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent No.5, his wife and son from interfering with the possession of the petitioner No.1. (iii) The petitioners contend that though respondent Nos.2 to 5 were parties to the partition and were aware of the gift deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 as well as the sale deed executed by him, they set up the respondent No.2 to file an application before the respondent No.1 under the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the gift deed and to initiate action against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and restore the land that was transferred to the respondent Nos.3 to 5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 (iv) The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 was deliberately not arrayed as party to the proceedings before the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 entered appearance before the respondent No.1 and agreed that the division was effected between the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and also agreed that Sy.No.35/2 fell to the share of respondent No.2 and therefore, requested the respondent No.1 to cancel the gift deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.5. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each to the respondent No.2. (v) The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 17.10.2020 to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 then considering the report, passed the order dated 24.02.2021 directing the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- each every year to the respondent No.2 for her maintenance. (vi) The respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5 purportedly submitted another representation dated 23.03.2021 requesting respondent No.1 for restoration of her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 lands to an extent of 12 acres which was in possession of the respondent Nos.3 to 5. The representation was again referred to the Enquiry Officer who conducted an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, it was brought to the notice of Enquiry Officer that Sy.No.35/2 which was gifted to respondent No.5 was already sold to the petitioner No.1. Nonetheless, enquiry report dated 07.04.2021 was submitted, based upon which respondent No.1 passed an order dated 10.08.2021 canceling the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.5 and ordered restoration of the land to the respondent No.2. (vii) The petitioners submit that petitioner No.1 executed a gift deed dated 08.11.2021 in favour of petitioner No.2 conveying Sy.No.35/2 and Sy.No.63/2 of Idakanahalli village. The petitioner No.1 claims that she was unaware of the orders dated 24.02.2021 and 10.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioners contend that the name of petitioner No.1 was entered in the revenue records pursuant to acceptance of M.R.No.H9/2017 and M.R.No.H1/2016-17. After the gift deed dated 08.11.2021 was executed in favour of petitioner No.2, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 they approached the Tahsildar, Gubbi, for transfer of khatha in favour of petitioner No.2. It was only then that they were told about the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioners therefore, obtained the copies of the order dated 10.08.2021 and have filed this writ petition. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that neither the respondent No.2 nor respondent No.5 were the owners of the property and therefore, the respondent No.1 could not have entertained the proceedings for cancellation of the gift deed dated 17.05.2017. He contends that the petitioner No.1 having lawfully purchased the property from the respondent No.5 must have been arrayed as party in the proceedings before the respondent No1 since by that time, the name of the petitioner No.1 was already entered in the revenue records. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (ii) He also contends that the respondent No.1 having once exercised jurisdiction and having once passed an order dated 24.02.2021 could not have entertained another application at the instance of the respondent No.2 to review the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 order dated 24.02.2021 and he could not have passed an order dated 10.08.2021 canceling the gift deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.5. He contends that the power of review cannot be exercised unless there is a specific provision provided for review in the statute namely, the Act of 2007. He contends that there is no power vested in the respondent No.1 in the Act of 2007 to review his own orders. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and colourable. (iii) He further contends that for the second time, when the respondent No.2 filed an application, the respondent No.5 informed the Enquiry Officer that he had sold the property gifted by the respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have impleaded the petitioner No.1 as a party to the proceedings. He further contends that the petitioner No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.204/2019 for perpetual injunction against the respondent No.5, his wife and son and an order of injunction is granted. The respondent No.5 did not deliberately bring it to the notice of the respondent No.1 about the said order. He contends that the impugned order passed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 respondent No.1 would come in the way of petitioner No.1 exercising civil rights over the property bearing Sy.No.35/2. (iv) He further contends that the respondent No.1 has usurped the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as he has entertained the claim of the respondent No.2 that the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 was fraudulently obtained by the respondent No.5. He contends that the only two circumstances under which the respondent No.1 can exercise jurisdiction under the Act of 2007 is when (i) there is a stipulation in the gift deed that it is executed in lieu of maintenance of the donor, (ii) such gift deed must have been executed after the Act of 2007. (v) He further contends that in the gift deed dated 17.05.2017, there is no mention that the respondent No.5 was bound to maintain the respondent No.2 and that the gift deed was executed for that purpose. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is beyond the scope of the Act of 2007 and hence, liable to be set aside. He further submits that the remedy, if any, is before the Civil Court and not before the respondent No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 4. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the respondent No.2 was only concerned with the gift deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 and nothing else. He contends that the respondent No.2 was not aware of the sale deed executed by the respondent No.5 in favour of petitioner No.1 and therefore, the petitioner No.1 was not arrayed as a party in the proceedings before the respondent No.1. He also contends that the respondent No.2 was not aware of the suit filed by petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.204/2019 against the respondent No.5, his wife and son. He further contends that the respondent No.2 was forced to seek restoration of 12 acres of land as she was not aware that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had partitioned the properties that were owned by the respondent No.2. He contends that the respondent No.2 who is lawfully entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent Nos.3 to 5 was also entitled to set at nought the partition as well as the documents brought about by them in respect of her properties. He further contends that even if a condition is not mentioned in the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 that the respondent No.5 should maintain the respondent No.2, the same has to be read into the gift deed. In - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others [Civil Appeal No.10927/2024]. (ii) He further contends that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to protect the interest of parents and senior citizens. He contends that the order dated 10.08.2021 is not a review of the order dated 24.02.2021 but both of them are separate and independent orders and hence, the order dated 10.08.2021 is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. The fact that respondent No.2 had executed a gift deed dated 17.05.2017 in favour of respondent No.5 is not in dispute. The respondent No.2 cannot now dispute the sale deed executed by respondent No.5 in favour of petitioner No.1, as a copy thereof was filed along with the writ petition and there is no denial of the said fact. The name of petitioner No.1 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 is entered in the revenue records based on such sale as per M.R.No.H9/2017. The petitioner No.1 based on the sale deed 06.06.2018 has filed O.S.No.204/2019 against the respondent No.5, his wife and son in respect of the property in question, where an order of injunction is granted by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi. It appears from the first request made by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 dated 28.02.2020 that she was suffering from diabetes, blood pressure, heart ailments and poor eyesight and therefore, none of her children were taking care of her. She claimed that she had received 12 acres of land from her father and that her sons had partitioned the same without her knowledge. She claimed that except signing the documents, she could not discern what was written therein as she did not know to read and write. She alleged that her children had abused her and were not taking care of her. She claimed that when she had visited a temple, she was advised by a good samantan to approach the respondent No.1 to recover back her property. Based on this request, the respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the Act of 2007. Curiously, the respondent No.4 appeared before the respondent No.1 and undertook to pay yearly maintenance - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 of Rs.20,000/- and staked his claim in 2-11 acres of land that was given at the partition to the share of the respondent No.2. Likewise, the respondent No.3 also submitted a letter to the respondent No.1 agreeing to pay Rs.20,000/- every year and staked his claim in 2-11 acres of land that was given at the partition to the share of respondent No.2. Likewise, the respondent No.5 submitted a letter to the respondent No.1 stating that 2-11 acres was set apart for the maintenance of respondent No.2 and that he without the notice and knowledge of his brothers, had obtained a gift deed from the respondent No.2 and sold it to the petitioner No.1 to clear off his liabilities. He submitted that if the gift deed is cancelled, he would pay off the money to the petitioner No.1. Following this, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 24.02.2021 directing each of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every year to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 did not annul the gift deed. While doing so, the respondent No.1 held as follows:- "........DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj EqÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.35/2 gÀ°è 2- 11 J/UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå gÀªÀjAzÀ eÉʲî PÉÆÃA ²ªÀUÀAUÀAiÀÄå ºÀÄAd£Á¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ²gÁ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 PÀæAiÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj zÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁPÀj¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÄ eÉʲî PÉÆÃA ²ªÀUÀAUÀAiÀÄå gÀªÀjUÉ DVgÀĪÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁPÀj¸À®Ä ¥Á®PÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀgÀ gÀPÀëuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 2007 gÀr gÀºÁ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è." 7. Following this, the respondent No.2 again submitted another request with the respondent No.1 on 23.03.2021 alleging that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had though agreed to pay the maintenance failed to do so. She therefore, requested that the lands belonging to her be restored. In response to this, the respondent No.1 held proceedings and passed the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 stating as follows;- "........F »AzÉ MAzÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ zÁ£ÀªÁV PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà µÀgÀvÀÄÛ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ jmï.¦nµÀ£ï £ÀA.54488/2017 (fJA-DgïEJ¸ï) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14-11-2018 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà µÀgÀvÀÄÛ «¢ü¹ zÁ£ÀªÁV ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ »jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀ¯ÉAzÀÄ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ »jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV zÁ£À¥ÀvÀæ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÉÄAzÀÄ JwÛ»r¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ, gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ »jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀgÀ fêÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ gÀPÀëuÉ MzÀV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÁÌV F AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄ - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ zÁ£À¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹, PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥Á®PÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄ £ÁUÀjÃPÀgÀ gÀPÀëuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 2007 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 23 (1) gÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ." 8. A perusal of the Act of 2007 makes it more than evident that the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 under Section 23 would arise only, (i) when a senior citizen has transferred by way of gift or otherwise his/her property after the commencement of the Act, (ii) when such gift is subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities to the transferor. 9. In the case on hand, though the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 is executed after the commencement of Act of 2007, there was no stipulation in the gift deed dated 17.5.2017 that the respondent No.5 had to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the respondent No.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684] had considered this very position and had held that if the twin conditions as - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 mentioned above, do not exist then the authority under the Act of 2007 cannot exercise jurisdiction to nullify the gift or other documents executed by the parent or senior citizen. In Urmila Dixit (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to a separate document executed by the donee that she would take care of the donor and her husband. In that context, it applied the purpose of legislation doctrine and the mischief it intended to deal and held that the responsibility to maintain the parents has to be read into even if not mentioned in the gift deed. 10. This apart, as on the date when the respondent No.2 made an application before the respondent No.1, the property had already changed hands and the petitioner No.1 had purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 06.06.2018 that was duly registered and her name was entered in the revenue records. It appears on the request submitted by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 that the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 was obtained fraudulently, the respondent No.1 had exercised jurisdiction. The question whether the gift deed was obtained fraudulently by respondent No.5 or not lay within domain of the Civil Court and respondent No.1 could not have - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 exercised jurisdiction. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of this Court in Sri. Jayashankar vs. The Assistant Commissioner and others [2024 (6) Kar.L.J. 257], where it was held as follows: "6.3 The Tribunal exercising powers under Section 23(1) of the Act is not a civil court, nor the powers exercised by the Tribunal under the said provision are the powers of civil court. They are the powers in the context of the provisions of the Act which have their own purpose and object, which is to provide more effective recourse in law for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens and to guarantee and recognize for them their rights. 6.4 In the above view, it will not be permissible in law for the Tribunal, while exercising powers under Section 23(1) of the Act, to pronounce upon generally that the transfer of the property by way of gift or otherwise was fraudulent or that the transferor was guilty of fraud or coercion in the general sense of the term. The rights and obligations arising for the parties in the context of commission of fraud as is to be applied in general law, are the civil disputes. It is not open for the Tribunal functioning - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 under the Act to pronounce upon such fraud having committed in effecting the transfer. 6.5 In view of the above position obtaining, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in making the observations in paragraph 13 of its order by suggesting that the gift deed was fraudulently obtained from the complainant. The aspects mentioned by the Tribunal in that regard are to be proved by leading of evidence. It was not permissible for the Tribunal to arrive at a different finding in that regard. Even otherwise, recording of such finding was beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal." 11. Further, the respondent No.1 having once exercised his jurisdiction under the Act of 2007 by holding that the gift deed dated 17.05.2017 cannot be cancelled in view of the subsequent sale by respondent No.5 in favor of petitioner No.1 could not have reviewed his order to hold that despite such sale, the gift deed could be revoked. The respondent No.1 did not have the powers of review under the Act of 2007 and he could not have passed such an order behind the back of the petitioner No.1. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalabharati - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others [(2010) 9 SCC 437], where it was held as follows: "12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar [AIR 1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)" 12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and a clear colourable exercise of power and therefore, is liable to be set aside. 13. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in case bearing No. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30651 WP No. 24295 of 2021 ¥Á¥ÉÇøÀA ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄ £Á.gÀ.PÁ.¸ÀA:61/19-20 is set aside. (iii) The proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 in case No.¥Á¥ÉÇøÀA ºÁUÀÆ »jAiÀÄ £Á.gÀ.PÁ.¸ÀA:61/19-20 is dismissed. (iv) It is however open for the respondent No.2 to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs in accordance with law. (v) All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32