- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5423 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT RUKMINAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O LATE K T SRINIVASA R/AT NO.1 OLD NO. 16 3RD FLOOR 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAYOUT OLD GURUPPANAPALAY, BENGALURU -5600076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT -560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560009. 4. S.BHASKAR. S/O K.T.SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, OLD NO. 16, 1ST STAGE BTM LAY OUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAY OUT, OLD GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU -560 076 MOBILE NO. 9740458473. 5. SMT. DAKSHAYINI W/O BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, OLD NO. 16, 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAY OUT OLD GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 07. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. BHASKAR BABU H.J., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.A.G.(4) SC/CR/23/2022-23 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU; SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 18/11/2023 PASSED BY R2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN M.A.G.(4) SC/CR/23/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE-L; TO DIRECT R4 AND R5 NOT TO DENY THE USER OF LIFT FACILITY IN THE BUILDING WHERE PETITIONER IS RESIDING I.E, AT NO. 1, OLD NO. 16, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST STAGE BTM LAY OUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO MARUTHI LAYOUT, OLD GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU 560076. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The essential parties to the dispute are a mother, her only son with the daughter-in-law also joining, and the dispute is over a residential property with multiple tenements. The mother asserts that: [i] the revenue entries to the property– the subject property1 must stand in her name and not in the name of the daughter-in-law but both [the mother and the daughter-in-law] are categorical that no third party interest will be created. [ii] that even if the property is transferred to her name, she will ensure that only her son succeeds to the property. [iii] The son, on his part, has no difficulty in meeting all the expenses of the 1 No. 1, Old No. 16, 3rd Floor, 1st Stage BTM Layout, 2nd Main Road, Opposite To Maruthi Layout, Old Gurappanapalya, Bengaluru 560076 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 mother apart from paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for her personal expenses. 2. The question: whether this Court must intervene with the impugned orders is examined in this context and also the mother’s case that the second respondent [the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner] could not have entertained an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act'] on behalf of the son. The petitioner [the mother] has invoked the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act for the cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 31.12.2014 executed by her in favour of the fourth respondent [her son]. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 24.06.2022, has cancelled the Gift Deed dated 31.12.2014 directing the fourth - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards EMI and a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for the petitioner's maintenance. 4. The Assistant Commissioner has recorded the undisputed facts that the petitioner had purchased the property way back in May 2001, that she gifted the property to the fourth respondent in the year 2014 and that the fourth respondent was only aged twenty years as of the date of the purchase. The fourth respondent along with his wife [the fifth respondent], have challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 24.06.2022 with the jurisdictional Special Deputy Commissioner as in the interregnum he has executed a Gift Deed in favour of the fifth respondent. The Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 18.11.2023 has interfered with the Assistant Commissioner's order. 5. Both Sri S Rajashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Bhaskar Babu H J, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 the learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents, are heard on the merits and the terms of a settlement amongst the parties, and they do not fall behind the other in the vehemence in canvassing their respective cases and in insisting upon a few terms. In the peculiarities of the case, especially given the relationship, and that this property is developed using a loan and there is an outstanding of over Rs.45 lakhs to the creditor as against the security of the subject property, this Court is of the considered view that the current position qua the title and the revenue records need not be altered. 6. However, the petitioner's interest will be protected and the mutual interests balanced if the fourth and fifth respondents, between them, are called upon to take every measure to ensure that the petitioner has no difficulty in using the premises in her occupation, that the outstanding is discharged with no default and that they pay to the petitioner, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 apart from meeting all expenses of the property and the expenses that the petitioner may have to incur in case of medical emergency, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. These terms will serve the overarching purpose of the Act and the procedure that is envisaged. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of directing the fourth and fifth respondents not to create any third-party interest in the subject property during the petitioner's lifetime. [b] The fourth and fifth respondents shall make all efforts to ensure that the loan outstanding as against the subject property does not result in default and that they pay all the property taxes and other charges including the charges for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 the tenement that is occupied by the petitioner. [c] The fourth and fifth respondents, as and when the petitioner chooses to occupy an alternative tenement in the subject property, shall ensure that suitable arrangements are made therefor without driving the petitioner to another litigation. [d] The petitioner shall, if there is reason for her to make a choice, shall cause communication of such choice to the fourth and fifth respondent in writing. [e] The fourth and fifth respondents shall pay, effective from 01.07.2025 every month before the end of the fifteenth of each month, Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner and for the month of July 2025, this amount shall be paid within a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29785 WP No. 5423 of 2025 week from today. The amount shall be transferred directly to the petitioner’s account. [f] The petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents shall, with this order, ensure that they report a settlement in the pending criminal proceedings. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-