Karnataka High Court
Smt L Yashodamma vs G Lakshmaiah on 10 February, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8073
WP No. 58216 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 58216 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT L. YASHODAMMA
W/O SRI MANJUNATH @ BABU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.29, 5TH ROAD,
JOGUPALYA, HALASUR,
BANGALORE-560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O SRI CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT GUNDLAPALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by KASABA HOBLI,
SUMA B N BANGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
3. SMT. HEMAVATHI
WIFE OF SRI. L. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. MASTER NANDA KISHORE
SON OF SRI. L. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8073
WP No. 58216 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. HEMAVATHI.
(3) AND (4) R/AT GUNDLAPALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI., ADVOCATE FOR
R1(ABSENT)
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. VASANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 (ABSENT))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 31.08.2018 IN MSCR
NO.53/2017-18 AT ANNEXURE-P AND TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN MSCR NO.53/2017-18 BEFORE THE R-2
CULMINATING IN THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2018 AT
ANNEXURE-P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner, who is the daughter of respondent No.1 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner in Case No.M.S.C.R.53/17-18 in purported exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR
2. The case of the petitioner is that;
(a) respondent No.1/her father had conveyed lands measuring 1 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.97/3, 16 guntas in Sy.No.97/4B, 15 guntas in Sy.No.97/4A, all situated at Gundlapalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District and also another extent of 21 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.183/2 of Mallasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, in all, total measuring 2 acres 33 guntas in terms of registered deed of gift dated 20.10.2008. The petitioner had accepted the gift and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. That name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records vide M.R.No.4/2008-09 and in MR No.21/2008-09 both dated 16.12.2008. That a rectification deed also came to be executed on 23.10.2008 rectifying certain defects in description of the property. Subsequently, petitioner had sold one of the items of the aforesaid properties to certain Sri.R. Venkatesh in terms of deed of sale dated 16.11.2015.
(b) That even after the respondent No. 1 conveying the above properties in favour of the petitioner, he had retained vast extent of land in his name and he had sold two items of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR the said properties retained by him on 22.02.2016 to certain Sri. S.S.Srinivasa. A suit in O.S. No. 65/2016 came to be filed by elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Sri. L.Nagaraju, against the petitioner, respondent No.1 and even the purchasers of the property of the petitioner and the other family members. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the purported ground of there being certain formal defects.
(c) Thereafter, the respondent No.1 had gifted certain lands measuring 34 guntas in Sy.No.22/2, 38 guntas in Sy.No.22/3, 37 guntas in Sy.No.27/1 and 34 guntas in Sy.No.27/2 of Gundlapalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli in favour of his son Sri. L.Nagaraju in terms of deed of gift dated 11.09.2017. Yet again, the said Sri.L. Nagaraju, brother of the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.245/2017 against the petitioner, respondent No.1 and other family members seeking partition.
(d) That during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.1 filed petition under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for brevity 'Act') against the petitioner seeking cancellation of the deed of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR gift and restore the property on the premise of same having been obtained by playing fraud on him.
(e) That Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner by order dated 31.08.2018 allowed the said application not only cancelling the deed of gift that had been executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner but also the deeds of sale which the petitioner had executed in favour of aforesaid Sri.R.Venkatesh and Sri.S.S.Srinivas. The said order was subject to outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No. 245/2017 filed by Sri. L.Nagaraju.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even the said suit in O.S.No.245/2017 has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.12.2018. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that neither the petition filed by respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner satisfied the requirements of Section 23 of the Act nor the order passed by the respondent No.2. He submitted that the very premise on which the respondent No.1 has approached the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is -6- NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR the alleged fraud played on him by the petitioner. There is no scope under Section 23 or any other provisions in Act, 2007 to entertain such a petition. Therefore, he submitted the order passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is one without jurisdiction.
4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.1.
5. Learned AGA seeking to justify the order passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, submits that the fact that respondent No.1 was senior citizen has weighed in the mind of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner who has passed the order in furtherance to the object sought to be achieved which cannot be found fault with. Therefore, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard. Perused the records.
7. Application filed by the respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner produced at Annexure-M reads as under;
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¸À¤ßzÁ£ÀPÉÌ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ.
gÀªÀjAzÀ.
f. ®PÀëöäAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï aPÀÌ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà UÀÄAqÀè¥À°è UÁæªÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ ¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr zÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, UÀÄAqÀè¥À°è UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.97/3 gÀ°è 1-21 UÀÄAmÉ, ¸À.£ÀA.97/4© gÀ°è 0-16 ºÁUÀÆ ¸À£ÀA.97/4J gÀ°è 0-15 UÀÄAmÉ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ªÀÄ®è¸ÀAzÀæ ¸À£ÀA,183/2 gÀ°è 0-21 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è SÁvÉ EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ J¯ï AiÀıÉÆÃzÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è Cj²£À PÀÄAPÀĪÀÄPÁÌV ªÀÄ®è¸ÀAzÀæ ¸À£ÀA,183/2 gÀ°è 0-21 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß zÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è 1£Éà zÀÝgÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ DzÀgÉ zÁ£À ¥ÀvæÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ®è¸ÀAzÀæ ¸À.£ÀA183/2 gÀ°è 0-21 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ zÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ PÀtÄÚUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀĪÀ UÀÄAqÀè¥À°è UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ MlÄÖ 2-12 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½AiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj zÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ 82 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀÄÝ J¯ï. AiÀıÉÆÃzsÀªÀÄä gÀªÀjUÉ J¯Áè d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖ¢Ýj CzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV CªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÀÄß G½zÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¥ÉÆõÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀ°è®è. £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÉÆõÀuÉ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ J¯ï. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr §gɬĹ PÉÆArgÀĪÀ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ UÀÄAqÀè¥À°è UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.97/3 gÀ°è 1-21 UÀÄAmÉ, ¸À.£ÀA.97/4© gÀ°è 0-16 ºÁUÀÆ ¸À.£ÀA.97/4J gÀ°è 0-15 UÀÄAmÉ,, MlÄÖ 2-12 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ ¹¤AiÀÄgï ¹nd£ï 2007 DPïÖ ¥ÀæPÁgÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß £À£ÀUÉ ªÁ¥Á¸ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ. CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ zÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉgÁPïì £ÀPÀ®ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR
8. Clearly, the ground on which respondent No.1 has sought the intervention of the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is that the said deed of gift dated 20.10.2008 has been obtained by the petitioner by fraudulent means and that he was not able to see through the contents of the document. It is not as if there was any condition imposed under the gift deed or violation of any condition thereunder. It is also not on the ground that petitioner has neglected to provide any maintenance or amenities to the respondent No.1.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramthi Devi and Another reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225 at Paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment has 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 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR 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.
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.
16. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by Respondent 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of Respondent 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to Respondent 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22-5-2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor -- senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by Respondent 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition."
10. The impugned order produced at Annexure-P dated 31.08.2018 though records the facts in extenso, there is no reason emanating in consonance with the provisions of the Act as noted above. Clearly neither the petition filed by respondent No.1 or the order is traceable to provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007. Allegation of fraud, mis-representation, undue
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8073 WP No. 58216 of 2018 HC-KAR influence or coercion cannot be gone into and adjudicated by Respondent No.2 as he lacks jurisdiction and authority, which is vested only with a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
11. In that view of the matter, following;
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner in Case No. M.S.C.R No.53/17-18 is quashed.
iii. Notwithstanding allowing the petition, respondent No.1, is at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available and permissible under law since he has alleged that deed of gift was obtained by the petitioner by fraudulent means.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24