- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32877 WP No. 14729 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14729 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. AFREEN TAJ WIFE OF NOOR PASHA, DAUGHTER OF ISMAIL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO. 8, OPP TO GOKUL DAIRY, MADDUR ROAD, KUNIGAL TOWN, PIN CODE-572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU, PIN CODE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM-CHAIRMAN, HIRIYARA NYAYA MANDALI, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR, PIN CODE-572 130. 3. SMT. MEHRUNNISSA Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32877 WP No. 14729 of 2022 WIFE OF LATE ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO. 8, TANJAVUR MOHALLA, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572 130. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 25.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 6.7.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.PA.PO.SO.HIRIYARA.NA.RA.KA.SO.NO.76/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-F. 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, granddaughter of respondent No.3, who is the donee in respect of the property subject matter of deed of gift dated 29.07.2019 executed by respondent No.3- grandmother, is before the Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in terms of order dated 06.07.2022 as per Annexure-F in terms of which the respondent-Assistant Commissioner has cancelled the said deed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32877 WP No. 14729 of 2022 of gift and has directed revenue records to be restored in the name of respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the order passed by the respondent -Assistant Commissioner is unsustainable as the same does not meet the requirement of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She submits that the deed of gift did not contain any conditions warranting petitioner to provide amenities and maintenance to respondent No.3. She relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 wherein at paragraphs 14 and 15 it is 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32877 WP No. 14729 of 2022 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." 3. Perusal of the deed of gift subject matter of this writ petition indicate that respondent No.3 had executed deed of gift dated 29.07.2019 out of her natural love and affection towards her grand daughter, the petitioner. There is no condition, assurance and undertaking of providing any amenities or basic needs. 4. Further the averments in the petition filed by the respondent No.3 before the Assistant Commissioner indicate that the petitioner herein had allegedly obtained the said deed of gift fraudulently. That petitioner had taken respondent No.3 to some office and had taken her photograph and thumb impression by falsely promising of getting her higher pension. That she learnt about the same recently. Allegations of fraud - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32877 WP No. 14729 of 2022 and misrepresentation cannot be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. The respondent-Assistant Commissioner therefore could not have invoked Section 23 of the Act, 2007 to pass the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid averments, allegations. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.07.2022 at Annexure-F passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru, is quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7