- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20514 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O MUNIGANGAPPA, R/AT NO.33, 8TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAKSHITH R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. B V RAMESH, S/O LATE B VERANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 3. SMT. SOWBAGYAMMA, W/O B V RAMESH S/O LATE B VEERANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.554, 2ND B CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STREET, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. 4. B R PRATHIBHA, D/O B V RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.455, 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. 5. SMT. SOWRABHA R GOWDA, W/O RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA, D/O B V RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT C/O B V RAMESH, NO.554, 2ND B CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, 7TH MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.11 4TH CROSS ROAD, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, VYALIKAVAL HBCS LAYOUT, NAGAWARA, BENGALURU-560 045. 6. L & T HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED UNIT 1, 3RD FLOOR, PRIDE HULKUL, NO.116, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. REP BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR.,AGA FOR R1; SRI.VISHNU HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3(NOC); SRI. PRASHANT POPAT., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. B C AVINASH., ADVOCATE FOR R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE IN ITS PROCEEDING QUASH THE SAME. 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. “Wherefore, the petitioner respectively prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to: a. Call for records in proceedings bearing No.MSC/CR/82/2018-19 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner Bangalore North Sub Division Bangalore and set aside the order dated 23.07.2021 Annexure-A passed by the Assistant Commissioner Bangalore North Sub Division Bangalore in its proceeding bearing No.MSC/CR/82/2018-19 by quash the same and by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other order. b. Further pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the above proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 2. The petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The mother-in-law has executed a gift deed in favour of the fourth respondent/daughter by gift deed dated 23.06.2014 and they have mortgaged the property and obtained the loan. Respondent No.4 has executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner's wife i.e. respondent No.5 on 27.08.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner on 30.11.2018. The petitioner has taken the loan and according to him whatever the loan he has taken from the Bank has given it to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 respondent No.4. Now respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Assistant Commissioner in MSC/CR/82/2018- 19 to cancel the gift deed that is executed in favour of respondent No.4 and subsequent gift deeds that are executed in favour of the petitioner and his wife. By order dated 23.07.2021, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the gift deeds dated 23.06.2014, 27.08.2015, 30.11.2018 and directed the petitioner to repay the loan availed from the Bank at his own costs and risks. It is submitted before the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 Commissioner that the three gift deeds are void ab initio as there is no intentions to the senior citizens to permanently transfer the scheduled property in favour of the respondents. There is no intention to create right, title and possession in favour of any of the respondent and the gift deeds were standing in the name of the daughters are only the circumstantial one and created the said two gift deeds on the assurance and promises, but they have failed to keep the promises as well as to maintain the senior citizens in their old age. It is submitted that the gift deeds are not for consideration and it has taken from the senior citizens with misrepresentation, undue influence, pressure and all these transactions are unfair, invalid and all the deeds are unsustainable under law and the respondents have misused the property. 3. The Assistant Commissioner has observed that it is an admitted fact that the senior citizens have executed the registered gift deed in favour of the daughters for the purpose of raising loan from the Bank for the benefit of the senior citizens as father is a pensioner, mother is housewife, daughter is an employed person and eligible to raise loans from Bank and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 financial institutions and only for the purpose of raising the loan, they have executed the gift deed. Later daughters and the son-in-law have colluded and have used the father and mother to lend their names to the gift deed executed by the daughter in favour of the other daughter against making some false promises and misrepresentations. Again, the daughter has transferred the property in favour of the son-in-law without their notice. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner has come to conclusion that, with a false promise the gift deed has been obtained by the daughter. 4. The notices are served on respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e., to all the family members. Initially, for all the respondent one Advocate filed vakalath, later for respondent Nos.4 and 5/daughters, one advocate is appearing. For respondent Nos.2 and 3, one advocate by name Sri Vishnu Hegde on NOC has filed vakalath. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the gift deeds are not accompanied by any recital with regard to the maintenance of the senior citizens and the first gift deed which has been executed in the year 2014. In - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 view of the differences between the petitioner and the wife and they have gone before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the application which is beyond the scope of the Act and Court ought not to have cancelled the sale deeds. 6. Whenever this matter has come up before the Court, on all the occasions there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 is present. He submits that they have assigned this loan to the Asset Reconstruction Company and they have nothing to do with the said loan. Initially the vakalath is filed by one advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. Thereafter NOC vakalath is filed on behalf of 4 and 5. Though the advocates have filed vakalath, they have not represented them before this Court. As envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act, no recitals are contained in the gift deeds with regard to the maintenance of the senior citizen. It appears that in view of the disputes between the respondents and the petitioner, who is none other than the daughter of the second and third respondents, the entire litigation has been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20770 WP No. 20514 of 2021 initiated. When there is no recital as per Section 23 of the Act and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Mati Devi & Anr1, the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go into these aspects and on the face of it there appears to be collusion between the parties and this is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside. iii. All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 1 Civil Appeal No.174/2021 dated 06.12.2022