- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 46694 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. APPANI GOWDA, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT H.NO 534, CHITTANAHALLI HOUSING BOARD HOLENARSIPUR TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT 3 573 211. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 3 573 211. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION, SAKLESHPUR 3 573 134. 3. THIMMAMMA, W/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT BHOOVANAHALLI CROSS & POST, HOLENARSIPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 3 573 211. 4. BYREGOWDA, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BHOOVANAHALLI CROSS & POST, HOLENARSIPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 3 573 211. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR.,AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R.1 IN CASE AND IN R.A.NO.137/2018-19 FROM THE R.2 AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE DATED 27.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2018 IN RA.NO.137/2018-19 PASSED BY THE R.2 VIDE ANNEXURE- C. 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 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- i) Call for records from the 1st respondent in Case No.MAG/855/2018-19 and in R.A.No.137/2018-19 from the 2nd respondent. ii) Issue any appropriate order, direction or a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.MAG/855/2018- 19 dated: 27/08/2019 vide Annexure - D in confirming the order dated: 26/12/2018 in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 R.A.No.137/2018-19 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure - C. AND ii) Grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Thimmegowda had a wife by name Thimmamma, who is the respondent No.3 herein and five children. The said Thimmegowda had acquired ancestral property by way of inheritance in respect of land bearing Sy.No.7/12, 7/17, 7/6B, 47/5, 47/9, 7/8 and 7/9 situated at Kallimuddanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. The said properties were cultivated by the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4. On 23.04.2014, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with female children have executed a Release Deed in favour of the petitioner by receiving a consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- and released all their right in respect to the joint family properties acquired by the Late Thimmegowda and the same is registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 24.04.2014. The respondent No.3 colluded with respondent No.4 and female children after lapse of 4 years of executing Release Deed has filed an application before respondent No.2 under the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for cancellation of Release Deed dated 23.04.2014. The respondent No.2 registered the case in R.A.No.137/2018-19 and issued notice to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.4. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested to file statement of objections and orally undertook that he is ready to pay maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the petition. But respondent No.2 without giving an opportunity to file his objections has straight away by order dated 26.12.2018 cancelled the Release Deed dated 23.04.2014 and further directed Tahsildar to mutate the name of all the family members of respondent No.2 in revenue records. 3. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner stating that the petitioner has obtained Release Deed by paying consideration of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and there is no fraud or coercion or undue influence made to respondent No.3 at the time of execution of the Release Deed and further pleaded that the Release Deed has been executed by all the family members of late Thimmegowda and none of them have challenged the same - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 except respondent No.3 who disputed the execution of Release Deed in favour of the petitioner. Though the petitioner undertook that he is ready to look after respondent No.3 and he is ready to pay the maintenance in favour of respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 without considering the same and without ascertaining the material on records had dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued in line with the pleadings. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that considering the contention and the undue influence, respondents have rightly passed the order and set aside the Release Deed and there are no grounds to interfere. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, the Release Deed is executed in the year 2014 for consideration of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and the respondents are denying the same. In that case, it would not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. When similar issue fell for consideration before - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 the Division Bench of this Court in case of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others arising out of Writ Appeal No.573/2022 dated 17.03.2023, the Division Bench had observed as follows: "18. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression 'by way of gift or otherwise' so as to attract the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 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. 19. 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. 20. Though a specific contention is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that in view of the scope and object of the Senior Citizens Act, it is deemed 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 made by him would be null and void, it is an undisputed fact that 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 mentioned in Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 21. In the present case, on careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of the same and in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the transaction could be declared as null and void provided the same contains the stipulation that the transferee shall maintain the senior citizen and the aforesaid Gift Deed does not contain any such stipulation. In the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted." 7. In that view of the matter, the dispute that is raised by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not fall within the purview of the Act. If anybody is aggrieved and seeks cancellation of the document, the remedy is before the competent Civil Court but not before the authorities under the Act. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.MAG/855/2018-19 dated 27.08.2019 vide Annexure-D confirming the order dated 26.12.2018 in R.A.No.137/2018-19 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C, is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18108 WP No. 46694 of 2019 ii. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29