Karnataka High Court
Sri G Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 07.11.2024
Pronounced on : 03.12.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.4822 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.RAMESH
S/O LATE M.GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.48
7TH CROSS, 4TH 'B' MAIN
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI MANU N .
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT FOR
THE EMPOWERMENT OF
DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS,
2
GATE NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.SARASWATHAMMA
W/O LATE M.GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.48, 7TH B CROSS, 16TH B MAIN,
4TH B BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1;
SRI K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD
16/06/2022 IN CASE BEARING NO. MSC (SC) CR 3/2021-2 PASSED
BY THE CHAIRMAN THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS
AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AT
BENGALURU IN CASE BEARING NO. MSC (SC) CR 3/2021-22 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID CASE
BEARING NO.MSC (SC) CR/2021-22 FILED BY R-2.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 16-06-2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division exercising his jurisdiction as
Chairman of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) and has sought a
mandamus to dismiss the petition filed by the 2nd respondent before
the Assistant Commissioner, as a consequence thereon.
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Srinivasa, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is the youngest amongst the children of late
M. Gopal and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by two
4
separate gift deeds gifts two properties to the petitioner on 17-06-
2011 and 22-08-2011; both are registered documents. After about
10 years of execution of gift deeds, the petitioner owing to certain
financial necessities plans to sell the house property. He approaches
the 2nd respondent seeking her consent thereto. It is averred in the
petition that the 2nd respondent consents to selling the property
with a condition that she would live in the property even after it is
sold. The petitioner then explains to the purchaser that he is the
absolute owner of the property and would take care of the well
being of his mother.
4. The petitioner having faced financial crisis, executes a sale
deed in relation to the house property to one Manu N on 06-07-
2022. After execution of the sale deed, the 2nd respondent
approaches the Tribunal i.e., the Assistant Commissioner invoking
Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act' for short). The Tribunal in terms of the
order impugned dated 16-06-2022 annuls gift deeds. The petitioner
being aggrieved by the annulment of gift deeds, which is ordered
5
without even issuance of notice to the petitioner, has knocked at
the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order of the
Tribunal suffers from want of jurisdiction, for the reason that the
gift deeds, both of which were challenged before the Tribunal, did
not contain any clause with regard to maintenance of parents and
without the said condition, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
is contrary to law.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would vehemently contend that the petitioner has sold
the property and left the mother in the lurch. Left with no choice
and unable to maintain herself, the mother had to knock at the
doors of the Assistant Commissioner seeking redressal in terms of
the Act. He would contend that gift deeds need not contain specific
clause with regard to maintaining the donor at the hands of the
donee. It is permissible to infer such things, as gifts are made out
of love and affection.
6
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would
vehemently refute the submissions contending that the order of the
Assistant Commissioner does not warrant interference, as
admittedly, the petitioner has neglected his mother.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. The
issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether, the Assistant
Commissioner could have entertained the petition and annulled the
gift deeds, notwithstanding the fact that those gift deeds did not
contain any clause with regard to the maintenance and all needs of
the donor, the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
notice the covenants in the gift deeds. The relevant paragraphs of
gift deed dated 17-06-2011, read as follows:
".... .... ....
III. NOW THIS DEED OF GIFT WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:
7
1. That in consideration of the natural love and
affection of the Donor for the Donee, the Donor hereby
transfers all that right, title and interest over all that
Residential Property presently bearing Municipal No.48,
situated at 7th Cross, 4th 'B' Block, Koramangala, Ward
No.68, Bangalore, PID No.68-7--48, consisting of Ground,
First and a Room in Second Floor, which is more fully
described in the schedule below and hereinafter referred
to as the "SCHEDULE PROPERTY", to the Donee through
this Gift Deed free from all encumbrances hereto, TO
HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same to the Donee absolutely
forever;
2. That the Gift of the Schedule Property made by
the Donor to the Donee is absolute and irrevocable in
future and henceforth the Donor and/or her legal
representatives have no right, title and interest, claim or
whatsoever in this gifted property.
3. That the Donor hereby deliver vacant possession of the
Schedule Property to the Donee and the Donee hereby accepts
the gift of the Schedule Property and the Gift hereby is
completed for having accepted and taken possession of the
Schedule Property.
4. That the Donor has this day delivered all the original
documents of title in respect of the Schedule Property to the
Donee;
5. That the Donor further assures the Donee that there
are no encumbrances, Court attachments or charges on the
Schedule Property and none else has any right, title, interest
over the Schedule Property;
6. That the Donee herein has got every right to transfer
the Katha and other documents to his name and pay all future
taxes and cesses and has got every right to develop or alienate
the Schedule Property to any person/s."
(Emphasis added)
8
The other gift deed executed on 22-08-2011 is verbatim similar to
what is found in the earlier gift deed. Therefore, the two properties
which the 2nd respondent owned are gifted to the petitioner and the
gift deeds do not contain any clause with regard to fulfillment of
maintenance or all needs of the mother. Such gift deeds which had
been annulled had become subject matter of proceedings before the
Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court in plethora of cases.
10. The Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA v.
RAMTI DEVI1, interpreting the provisions of the Act, has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
11. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it is
necessary to advert to the legal aspects. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate acting as the Maintenance Tribunal under the 2007
Act has invoked the power under Section 23 to declare that
the subject release deed was void. The 2007 Act has been
enacted for the purposes of making effective provisions for the
maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens
guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India.
The Maintenance Tribunal has been established under Section
7 to exercise various powers under the 2007 Act. Section 8
provides that the Maintenance Tribunal, subject to any rules
which may be framed by the Government, has to adopt such
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684
9
summary procedure while holding inquiry, as it deems fit.
Apart from the power to grant maintenance, the Tribunal
exercises important jurisdiction under Section 23 of the 2007
Act which 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
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."
(emphasis added)
12. 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.
10
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed
by respondent no. 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 no. 1) would provide
the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.
1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 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
no. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a
condition."
11
Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of SRI NANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2, has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
17. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the provisions
of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Protection Act, 2007. which reads as under:
"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
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."
18. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions makes
it clear that all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the
2
W.A.No.573 of 2022 decided on 17-03-2023
12
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 mentioned in Sub-section (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
13
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 Sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not
attracted.
22. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramti
Devi reported in LAWS (SC) 2022-12-17 wherein at
paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 it is held as under:
"12. 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
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.
13. 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-
14
section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a
transfer, existence of such conditions must be
established before the Tribunal.
14. Careful perusal of the petition under
Section 23 filed by respondent no. 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 no. 1) would provide
the basic amenities and basic physical needs to
respondent no. 1. Even in the impugned order dated
22nd May 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 no. 1 that the release deed
was executed subject to such a condition."
23. Though in the present case, a specific
contention is being taken by the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant that, the appellant being the absolute
owner of the property in question, out of love and
affection executed a Gift in favour of his
brother/respondent No.3 under a Gift Deed, dated
23.2.2012, with a ray of hope that the 3rd
respondent/brother would take care of basic needs of
medical necessities as his son was not keeping well and
his daughter was settled with her husband, but
respondent No.3 has changed attitude towards him and
has failed to show even love and affection towards him.
The fact remains that, on the application filed by the
appellant against respondent No.3, the Assistant
Commissioner, who is the authority under the provisions
of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act has allowed the application filed by the
present appellant ignoring the conditions stipulated
under the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the
15
Senior Citizens Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thereby, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the
writ petition. In identical circumstances, the Full Bench of
the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini -vs-
District Collector,
Kozhikode reported in LAWS (KER)-2020-9-81 at
paragraph-52 has held as under:
"52. We conclude by answering the reference, that the
condition as required under Section 23(1) for provision of
basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen
has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer,
which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which
partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous
transfer. It is the jurisdictional fact, which the Tribunal will
have to look into before invoking Section 23(1) and
proceeding on a summary enquiry. We answer the reference
agreeing with the decision in W.A. No. 2012 of 2012 dated
28.11.2012 [Malukutty Ponnarassery v. P. Rajan
Ponnarassery]. We find Shabeen Martin v. Muriel
[2016 (5) KHC 603] and Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional
Officer [2018 KHC 4655 = (2013) 3 KLT 1082] to be
wrongly decided. We approve Radhamani v. State of Kerala
[2016 (1) KHC 9] which had a recital in the document akin
to that required under Section 23(1)."
24. On careful reading of the contents of the Gift
Deed, dated 23.2.2012, the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court is in consonance
with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section
23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, as the Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011,
does not contain any stipulation that respondent No.3 is
under obligation to maintain the present appellant. In
the absence of the same, it cannot be held that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not
in consonance with the provisions of Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act.
25. Though our conscious is in favour of the welfare
of the Senior Citizens considering the scope and object of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007, but our hands are tied in view of the dictum of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh
16
Chhikara, wherein while interpreting the very provisions
of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act, it has
been held that the two conditions must be stipulated in
the document, which is binding on all including this Court
as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India.
26. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, in view of the latest
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 6th December
2022 in the case of Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramthi Devi
reported in LAWS(SC) 2022-12-17
27. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the
present Intra Court Appeal is answered in the negative holding
that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere
with the impugned order, dated 26.2.2019, passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.52010/2016."
(Emphasis supplied)
The orders of the Apex Court and that of Division Bench of this
Court clearly hold that, when the gift deed does not depict any
condition of maintaining the donor and meeting all necessities of
the donor, the gift deed cannot be annulled for mere failing to fulfil
the needs of the donor. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order,
annuls gift deeds, on the score that the donor was old and the son
having obtained gift deeds fraudulently, it was obligatory on his
part to look after the welfare and well-being of the 2nd respondent.
The order of the Assistant Commissioner and the reasons so
rendered read as follows:
17
"..... ..... .....
06. The Respondent has not provided the basic needs to
the Petitioner and failed to provide basic amenities and by
playing fraud and inducing the Petitioner, the Respondent got
the Gift Deeds in respect of schedule properties registered in his
favour. Since the Petitioner is age old lady, she required proper
care and maintenance from Respondent. The Respondent being
her son and also having obtained Gift Deeds fraudulently, it is
obligatory on his part to look after the welfare and well-being of
the Petitioner in her last leg of her life. But, the attitude of the
Respondent itself establishes that she is not taking care of the
Petitioner and has not been providing proper care and
maintenance to the Petitioner and therefore, it has become
necessary to cancel the aforesaid two Gift Deeds and to restore
the title to the said properties in favour of the Petitioner. The
present Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
07. In view of the above-mentioned facts and
observations, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is
entitled to get the relief sought for by her in the present Petition
and hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
In the result, the Petition filed by the Petitioner and registered at No.MSC(SC)CR 03/2021-22 is hereby allowed.
The Gift Deeds in respect of 1st item of property, namely:
bearing Municipal No.48 bearing PID No.68-7--48 Ward No.68 measuring East to West: 9.14 Meters and North to South: 12.19 Meters in all 111.41 square meters consisting of Ground, First and a Room in Second Floor situated at 7th Cross, 4th 'B' Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru registered in his favour on 17-06-2011 duly registered in the Office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli as Document No.BMH-I-02249-2011-12 of Book No.1 and stored in C.D. No.BMHD491, dated:17-06-2011 and another Gift Deed in respect of another property namely:
bearing No.610/33/14 Old Site No.14 V.P. Khatha No.610, Block No.5 measuring East to West on the Northern side 71 feet, Southern Side 72 feet and North to South on the Eastern side: 50 feet amd Western side 50 feet in all measuring 3,575 square feet situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru 18 South Taluk registered on 22-08-2011 registered in the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli as Document No.BMH-
1-04455-2011-12 of Book No.I and stored in C.D. No.BMHD506, dated: 22-08-2011 are hereby cancelled.
The Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli is hereby directed to take appropriate steps to enter this order in the Register of Encumbrance and in the Registering Register for having cancelled the registration of Gift Deeds, referred to above and to restore the name of the Petitioner.
The jurisdictional Tahsildar is hereby directed to take all steps to quit and vacate the persons in occupation in these two properties and to hand over the physical vacant possession of the schedule properties free of encumbrances in favour of and hand over the physical possession of Schedule Properties in favour of Petitioner.
The jurisdictional Tahsildar is further directed to approach the jurisdictional Police requesting them to extend all protection for the Petitioner for her life and liberty.
Endorse the Parties accordingly."
The reasons so rendered by the Assistant Commissioner would fly foul in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court quoted supra. The unmistakable inference on a coalesce of the judgments quoted supra and that of the facts obtaining in the case at hand including the covenants in the gift deeds is that the order of the Assistant Commissioner is rendered unsustainable.
19
11. Though the projection by the learned senior counsel is violation of principles of natural justice, if that were to be considered, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the hands of the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration after hearing the parties. That would be an exercise in futility, as the gift deeds do not contain any such condition and the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court have clearly held that orders of the Assistant Commissioners are a nullity, in identical circumstances. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to follow the aforesaid judgments and grant the petitioner relief that he has sought for, however, with the condition that the petitioner would continue to pay ₹10,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/mother throughout her life time. It is open to the mother to seek its enhancement in the event of need.
12. For the aforesaid reasons and the observations, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.20
(ii) The order dated 16-06-2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Bangalore South Sub-Division as Chairman of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal in No. MSC(SC)CR 3/2021-
22 stands quashed.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to continue to pay ₹10,000/-
every month to the 2nd respondent/mother throughout her life time.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ