- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 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.24630 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. M SHRUTHI W/O LATE BARATH C AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2199, NEAR BASAWESHWARA KALYANAMANTAPA, PENSION MOHALLA ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD R..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE SADANANDA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, BEHIND MUDA COMLEX ANDOLANA CIRCLE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSORE - 570 002. 3. SMT. MALATHI W/O DAYANANDA NO.MIG 89, 2ND MAIN 4TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAMAKRISHNANAGARA MYSURU CITY - 570 022. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.S. MOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA.1/2025 SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN IN NO.MAG(HNR) 17/2022-23 DATED 01.08.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. 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 is before this Court seeking following reliefs: ''(i) To quashing the order passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in No.MAG(HNR)17/2022-23 dated 01.08.2023 as per Annexure-E; (ii) Directing the respondent to pay costs of this petition to the petitioners, and (iii) Grand such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. '' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of deed of gift dated 30.08.2012 as per Annexure-A, respondent No.2 had conveyed the subject property in favour of one Usharani, who was the mother-in-law of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 3. He submits that originally respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. As against which respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, who by the impugned order had allowed the said appeal cancelling deed of gift dated 30.08.2012 that had been executed by respondent No.2 in favour of daughter-in-law namely Usharani. The said Usharani was the mother-in-law of the petitioner herein. He submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in the light of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the respondent No.2 was not being taken care of by the original donee, the order passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. He further submits that the deceased respondent No.2 had two sons and a daughter and except the daughter who is now impleaded, there are no other legal heirs. Hence, he submits that the order cannot be interfered with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and 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. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramthi Devi and Another reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 at paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 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. 16. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by Respondent 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of Respondent 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to Respondent 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22-5-2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor — senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by Respondent 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition." 8. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of law and enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, perusal of the deed of gift at Annexure-A dated 30.08.2012, which was originally executed by respondent No.2 in favour of her daughter in law, do not contain any clause as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act. 9. Further, originally an application was filed by the respondent No.2 only seeking maintenance under Section 5 of the Act, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27093 WP No.24630 of 2023 appeal filed before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No.1-District Commissioner has taken upon himself the onus of determining the validity or otherwise of the deed of gift dated 30.08.2012. 10. The reasons assigned in the impugned order would only indicate recording of the statement of deceased respondent No.2, of donee Usharani allegedly not taking care of deceased respondent No.2. That alone cannot be a ground for cancelling the deed of gift, which is not the intent or the purport of the provisions of the Act. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21