- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28136 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NATARAJA .S.R S/O RUDRAPPA AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 74, RANGARAO ROAD SHANKARAPURAM BANGALORE - 560004. 2. SMT. S.C. AMBIKA S/O SANTHOSH .M AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO 124, 4TH B CROSS GANESHA TEMPLE KSRTC LAYOUT, HEROHALLI BENGALURU-560091. 3. SRI. MANJUPRASAD .M.C W/O CHANDRASHETTY AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT SIGEHALLI MARALIKUPPE VILLAGE TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572213. 4. SRI. YUVARAJ W/O NAGASHETTY AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT TALAVADAKE VILLAGE BALKI TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT-585143. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 5. SMT. S.C. VEENA W/O N.D. RAJESHEKARAIAH AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NEELASANDRA VILLAGE ANAKANAHALLI MATHA POST HULIYURU DURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572213. 6. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O CHANNAPPA R/AT HOUSE NO. 33 SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR .N.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KONDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O SRI. LAKSHMANA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NASEPALYA VILLAGE MADABAL HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.05.2025, PASSED BY THE R-3 IN MSC(CR):07/2025 AND ALLOWING THE PETITION VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by respondent No.3 in declaring the gift deed as void. 2. The petitioners, claiming to be bona fide purchasers through their vendor, Smt. Shakuntala,daughter of respondent No.1 have called in question the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 Act”). The principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that respondent No.1, being aged 55 years, was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that the gift deed executed in favour of their vendor does not stipulate any condition obligating maintenance, and therefore, the invocation of Section 23(1) of the Act is legally untenable. 3. Today, the petitioners have placed on record a memo along with a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.219/2023. The said decree is relied upon to demonstrate that respondent No.1, along with other family members of the petitioners’ vendor, has accorded consent in support of the present petition. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.219/2023. Paragraph 10 of the said decree, being material for consideration, is extracted hereunder: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 "10. The Plaintiff and the Defendant submit that, during the pendency of the above suit the Plaintiff had also approached Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub- Division at Ramanagara in Petition No.40/2023-24 and Asst. Commissioner Bengaluru South Sub Division in Petition No.7/2025-26 under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against Defendant herein seeking for cancellation of gift deeds said to have been executed in favour of Defendant by the Plaintiff, the said Appeals were came to be allowed against which the aggrieved party i.e., the Defendant and the purchaser viz., namely Mr. Nataraj have preferred appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.28136/2025 shall be deemed to be allowed with the consent of the Plaintiff and which is filed by the purchaser namely Mr. Nataraj. In furtherance, the said purchaser have filed MFA No.8568/2023 against the Plaintiff and the Defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same are pending for consideration, in view of this compromise petition the purchaser namely Mr. Nataraj has agreed to withdraw the Appeal filed by the purchaser before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Defendant filed the Writ Petition No.5974/2025, which shall also be agreed withdrawn. The Plaintiff has agreed to give consent for allow the Writ Petitions No.28136/2025 filed by the purchaser who claiming rights under the Defendant herein." 5. Upon a careful reading of the extracted paragraph of the compromise decree, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in law for multiple - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 reasons. Firstly, respondent No.1, being aged 55 years, does not fall within the definition of a “senior citizen” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under the said Act is without jurisdiction. Secondly, the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioners’ vendor does not incorporate any stipulation or condition requiring the transferee to maintain the transferor, and in the absence of such a condition, invocation of Section 23(1) of the Act is wholly misconceived. Thirdly, the petitioners, being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed, have acquired valid and enforceable rights in the subject property, which could not have been nullified by respondent No.3 in exercise of powers under the Act. On all these counts, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17406 WP No. 28136 of 2025 6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by respondent No.3, vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42