- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.24549 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT SUBBALAKSHMAMMA S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI YALAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU – 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHRUVA KUMARA D.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NANYACHAR @ TATAPPA AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS 2. SRI. JANARDHAN S/O LATE NANYACHAR @ TATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT. NETHRAVATHI D/O LATE NANYACHAR @ TATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SRI RAGHUPATHI S/O LATE NANYACHAR @ TATAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. SRI NANJACHAR S/O LATE NANYACHAR Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 6. SRI SHANKARACHAR S/O LATE NANYACHAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 7. SRI KALACHAR S/O LATE NANYACHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 8. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE NANYACHAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE, HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 009. 9. SMT RAJAMMA D/O LATE NANYACHAR W/O SRI APPAJI L AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.73, 4TH ‘A’ MAIN 5TH CROSS, CHANDANA LAYOUT SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU NORTH – 560 091. 10. THE TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009. 11. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN AND THE SPECIAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – 1, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 IN CASE NO.MAG(4)SC/CR/15/2022-2023 PASSED BY THE R11 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R10 IN CASE NO.MSC/CR/68/2019-20 DATED 06.07.2022, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 1.20 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.60/11, SITUATED AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE, HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK AS THE SAID ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL, ABITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.1, is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by respondent No.10 – Assistant Commissioner in Case No.MSC/CR/68/2019-20 whereby the respondent No.10 accepted the plea of respondent No.1 that the petitioner herein purportedly obtained the Deed of Gift dated 16.09.2011 in respect of the subject property by playing fraud and has proceeded to cancel the said Deed of Gift. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits; (a) that the order passed by respondent No.10 is not in compliance with requirements of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (b) that the appeal in case No.MAG(4)/SC/CR/15/2022- 2023 filed against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.11 vide order dated 23.11.2022 without taking into consideration the grounds urged thereunder. (c) that a suit in O.S.No.1631/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is filed by the children of respondent No.1, which is still pending consideration and that in the light of this factual and legal position, respondent No.4 could not have passed the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that respondent No.1/mother-in-law of the petitioner, is aged about 95 years and taking undue advantage of her age, petitioner herein had obtained Deed of Gift. Therefore, taking note of this aspect of the matter, respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 Nos.10 and 11 have passed orders, which do not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 4. Heard. Perused the records. 5. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 reads as under: "23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. — (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right. (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5." 6. Thus, the twin conditions/ requirements needs to be satisfied. Perusal of the deed of gift would not indicate same containing any condition being imposed on the donee as required/contemplated under Section 23 as noted above. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 7. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi and another – (2024) 14 SCC 225 at para No.14 and 15 has held as under: “14. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: (a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. 15. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 8. In the light of aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter impugned order cannot be sustained as the same do not fall within the requirement of law. 9. Nonetheless, the impugned order however has directed respondent No.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards monthly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27022 WP No. 24549 of 2022 maintenance to respondent No.1 and the said order remains intact and the petitioner shall continue to pay the said amount to the respondent No.1. 10. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order dated 06.07.2022 passed by respondent No.10 – Assistant Commissioner in Case No.MSC/CR/68/2019-20 as well as the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in Case No.MAG(4)/SC/CR/15/2022- 23 by the respondent No.11-Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexures-A and B respectively are hereby quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10