- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:597 WP No. 107819 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.107819 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. DODDAMANI DYAMAVVA W/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VADDINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ, VIJAYANAGARA DIST-583131. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVANA GOUDA T., ADVOCATE) AND: DODDAMANI DYAMAPPA S/O. LATE BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. VADDINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TQ, VIJAYANAGARA DIST-583131. - RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI ON APPLICATION NO.3, IN O.S. NO.56/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:597 WP No. 107819 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A No.3 in O.S. No. 56/2020 dated 19.06.2025 by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, (for short, ‘Trial Court’) the defendant is before this Court. The respondent herein has filed a suit for declaration. In that, IA No. 3 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. 2. It is the case of the defendant that she is a senior citizen. The suit falls within the domain of the Senior Citizens Act. As such, the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court, by the impugned order, had dismissed the said IA. While dismissing the IA, the Court has observed that the present suit is filed for declaration of title, which is outside the domain of Senior Citizens Act, and as could be seen from the plaint averments no condition is attached to the sale deed said to have been executed by defendant with regard to the welfare of the Senior Citizen. Thus viewed from any angle, it is not possible to hold that defendant has made out grounds to reject the plaint. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:597 WP No. 107819 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint as the defendant is a senior citizen and the plaintiff is none other than the brother of the senior citizen. In fact, he has induced her and got the sale deed registered. It is submitted that, in view of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 this case falls under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 and suit is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Court has failed to consider the same. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the present suit is barred in the light of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is appropriate to look at Section 23 of the Act reads thus. “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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:597 WP No. 107819 of 2025 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.” 5. A bare reading of Section 23 of the Act, makes it clear that if there is a promise in the sale deed or in any transfer that is made by the senior citizen, then Section 23 is attracted. This is not one such case as contended by the defendant. The contention of the defendant cannot be taken into consideration while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Court can only look at the plaint and the documents filed along with the same. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:597 WP No. 107819 of 2025 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and the trial Court uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, shall consider the suit on the merits of it. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52