- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20289 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. YASHWANTH. S, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. SHANTHARAM M, RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR, S.L.N. ENTERPRISES, 9TH MAIN ROAD, (LOKESH ROAD), PIPE LINE ROAD, HOSAHALLI BADAVANE, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 132. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 3. RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, MIDIGESH GRAMA AND HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 133. 4. M. G. RAVIVARMA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, 5. SMT. ANSUYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O. GIRIRAJU. M, 6. M. SHANTHARAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.4, 5 7 6 ARE RESIDENT OF KURUBARA PALYA VILLAGE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 133. 7. SMT. M. G. KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. MARIYANNA. M.B., R/O. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 132. 8. SMT. GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. NAGARAJU. C, R/AT NO.39, PRASHANTH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, ATTUR ROAD, ANANTHAPURA, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 9. SMT. RADHAMANI. M. G. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O. DEVARAJAIAH, R/O. MAHADESHWARA BADAVANE, MANJANNA LAYOUT, MYLARALINGESHWARA NILAYA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.A C MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.DEEPAK F K., ADVOCATE FOR R6; SMT.NANDINI C G., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9; R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED IN MISC.C.R.NO.63/2021- 22 BY THE R2, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: i. To call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Misc.C.R.No.63/2021-22 by the 2nd respondent, produced vide Annexure-A & set aside the same as illegal and bad in law and; ii. To issue such other writ/s or directions which may deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.3 herein is the grandmother, who has approached the Respondent No.2 alleging that the gift deed that is executed in favour of the petitioner who is the grandson is obtained by fraud and the same has to be set aside. The Respondent No.4 is the son of the Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 & 9 are the daughters of the Respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 is the father of the petitioner and the son of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner who is the grandson on 08.10.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the gifted property and other properties were obtained by the respondent No.3 in a partition dated 01.10.2008 between herself and her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 son and her two sons. Other than the gifted properties there are properties in the name of the Respondent No. 3. The third respondent, at the behest of the other daughters and son, has approached the Respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the gift deed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Senior Citizens Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2, without any basis, by just recording the contentions of the parties, has set aside the gift deed that is executed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when there are no disciples with regard to the maintenance of the senior citizen, Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act is not attracted. The Respondent No.2 has no authority/jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint made by the Respondent No.3. When the matter came up, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 i.e., grandmother submits that the grandmother is not interested to pursue this matter. In fact she wants to withdraw the application that is filed by her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 before the Assistant Commissioner and the writ petition can be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 i.e., none other than the son of the Respondent No.3 submits that the Respondent No.3 has no such authority to execute a gift deed and in that regard they have filed OS.No.130/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Madhugiri and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that as on the day when the gift deed was executed she was 75 years old and as on today she is 82 years old and such concession that is made before this court cannot be considered. It is submitted that now the rights of the parties have to be crystallized by the competent Civil Court. Hence the parties may be relegated to the Civil Court. 5. As far as Respondent No.5 is concerned, notice is served and no vakalath is filed. On behalf of the other respondents, notice is served and vakalath is also filed but there is no representation on their behalf. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 6. Having heard the counsel's on either side, perused the entire material on record. When the Respondent No.3 has approached Respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the gift deed under the Senior Citizens Act stating that a fraud is played on her and the gift deed is obtained. There is no prima facie material before the Court and no evidence is adduced. There is no finding in that regard, except according to the contentions of the parties, the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application by setting aside the gift deed. The Respondent No.2 ought not to have passed such an order. Particularly in the gift deed there are no recitals with regard to the maintenance of the senior citizen and when that doesn't fall under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the Respondent No.2 ought not to have entertained the same and set aside the gift deed. 7. Coming to the contention of the Respondent No.3 that she is not interested to pursue the matter. That cannot be considered by this court at this stage because she has made several allegations against the petitioner and having said so now she cannot come before this Court saying that she wants to withdraw the claim against the same. Learned counsel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 appearing for the Respondent No.4 submits that the suit is pending and Respondent No.3 has no authority to execute the gift deed and in that regard he has already filed the suit. As far as the claim of the Respondent No.4 is concerned, a suit is pending before the competent Court, the competent Court will decide about the claim of the disputes interse between the parties. As far as this writ petition is concerned, this court is only concerned with regard to the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Respondent No.2. 8. In the considered opinion of this court, the order that is passed by the Respondent No.2 is beyond the powers conferred under the Act and contrary to Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. 9. In that view of the matter, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed by the Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner dated 16.02.2022 is set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20632 WP No. 20289 of 2023 ii. The Respondent No.4 as having instituted a suit can seek redressal of his grievance before the competent court. iii. Any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of this writ petition shall not be construed as an expression of this court and the trial Court shall independently decide the suit which is pending. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. Pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51