- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14562 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. JACINTHA FEREIRA D/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA W/O RONALD FEREIRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A HENRI ARYANA NEAR NEEDOTTI CHURCH NEEDOTTI, MOODABIDRI MANGALORE-574 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THE PRESIDENT THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT-575 001. 3. THE PRESIDENT THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSISTANT Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB DIVISION MANGALORE-575 001. 4. SMT MONTHIN D' SILVA W/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA AGED MAJOR BANGADY HOUSE KALLAMUNDKUR VILLAGE MANGALORE-574 123. 5. SMT IRIN SALDANA D/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA AGED MAJOR R/A FLAT NO.1301, S L MATHAISA ROAD FALNIR TERRASE MANGALORE-575 001. 6. REETA RODRIGUS S/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA AGED MAJOR R/A KAVOOR M, KODI HOUSE KINNIKAMBLA, MANGALORE-575 123. 7. VINCENT D' SILVA S/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA AGED MAJOR BANGADY HOUSE KALLAMUNDKUR VILLAGE MANGALORE-574 123. 8. SMT LOOSI REBELLO D/O LATE BAPTIST D SILVA AGED MAJOR R/A MAHIMA MARKUNJA ROAD KARNADU POST, MULKI MANGALROE-575 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 SRI. ASHWINI JOYSTON KUTINHA .,ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 AND R7; R6 AND R8 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 being daughter of respondent No.4 and sister of respondent Nos.5 to 8 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, in terms of which, in purported exercise of his power under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (Act 2007 for short), has cancelled the partition deed dated 06.03.2009 as well as release deed dated 06.12.2014. 2. The question with regard to jurisdiction of the revenue authority as that of the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and the respondent No.3-Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 Commissioner under the Act, 2007 for cancellation of partition deed is no more res integra. It is settled that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter pertaining to the partition deed or for cancellation of the same in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36601/2017 dated 25.03.2019. Paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under; 9. The issues, which arises for consideration in the instant petition are: firstly, whether the expression ‘transfer or otherwise’ would include partition as well having regard to object of the Act, secondly whether the Act would apply in respect of the transaction which has taken place before commencement of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid well settled principles with regard to statutory interpretation if Section 23(1) of the Act is perused, it is axiomatic that there has to be a transfer by way of gift or otherwise by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act. The concept of partition has a well settled legal connotation. Partition is a redistribution or adjustment of pre existing rights among co owners/coparceners resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them into different lots or proportions and delivery thereof to the respective allottees. The effect of such a division is that joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares of the parties vest in them in severalty. The separation of a share is a species of partition. [SEE: ‘SHUBH KARAN BUBNA VS. SITA SARAN BUBNA’, (2009) 9 SCC 689]. The partition by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a transfer and can be said to be covered under the expression ‘otherwise’. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, in the fact situation of the case are not attracted as the parties had entered into a partition deed on 24.01.1998 and 28.04.2008. The provisions of the Act do not apply in respect of a transaction entered into by a senior citizen prior to commencement of the Act as Section 23(1) clearly applies to a situation where a senior citizen transfers the property by way of gift or otherwise after the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 commencement of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Act in any case cannot be made applicable in respect of partition deed dated 24.01.1998. So far as partition deed dated 28.04.2008 is concerned the same is not covered within the meaning of section 23(1) of the Act as it is not a transfer. It is well settled rule of statutory interpretation that a Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases [See: ‘SEEFORD Court ESTATES LTD. VS. ASHER’, (1949) 2 All.E.R.155]. the Supreme Court cited a passage from ‘MAGOR & ST. MELLONS RDC VS. NEW PORT CORPORATION’, 18 (1951) 2 All ER 839, in ‘BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. A. RAJAPPA’, AIR 1978 SC 548 which reads: “The duty of the court is to interpret the words that the legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but even if they are, the power & duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited”. [See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G.P.Singh 13th Edition Page 73] 10. The submission made by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the word ‘otherwise’ used in Section 23(1) of the Act should be read so as to include partition deed as well does not deserve acceptance as the same would be contrary to the well settled legal position and this Court in the guise of interpretation and taking into account the object of the Act cannot do violence with the provisions of the expressions employed by the legislature in the Act, which is contrary to the statutory provision itself. It is well settled Rule of Statutory Interpretation that the doctrine of Harmonious construction cannot be invoked if the same amounts to doing violence to the language employed by the Legislature. [See: ‘GITHA HARIHARAN VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA’, 1999 (2) SCC 228]. The question of applicability of principle of ejusdem genris need not be gone into. Similarly, this Court in proceeding arising out of the provision of the Act cannot adjudicate the question whether the partition deeds had been executed by playing fraud. 3. As regards the cancellation of release deed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that release deed in question was executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31561 WP No. 14562 of 2022 herein and the same is also cancelled only at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 8. He submits that the respondent No.4 is no more and respondent Nos.5 to 8 have not contested the matter though they are parties to the above release deed and have neither sought for cancellation of the said release deed. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the position of law, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45