Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.13313 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATAIAH,
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI MAJARE,
BHOVI PALYA VILLAGE,
KANAKUPPE POST, HEBBURU HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally signed by
SHWETHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
KARNATAKA THE PRESIDENT, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
THE PRESIDENT, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572102
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O VENKATAIAH
W/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI MAJARE,
BHOVI PALYA VILLAGE,
KANAKUPPE POST, HEBBURU HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 175.
6. SRI. NARASEGOWDA
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE - MAJOR,
R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI MAJARE,
BHOVI PALYA VILLAGE,
KANAKUPPE POST,
HEBBURU HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 175.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA R1 RO R4;
SRI. D. NAGARJAA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT FOR QUASH/SET ASIDE AS PER
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2024
IN CASE NO.M.A.G(1)/02/2024 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any writ for quash
/set aside as per ANNEXURE-"A" passed by the 2nd
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent dated 22-10-2024 in case
No.M.A.G(1)/02/2024;
b. Quash the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent
dated 19-12-2023 in case No.PA.PO.SAM and SENIOR
NA.RA.KA.SAM:32/23-24 in so far as the Petitioner is
concerned by allowing this writ petition as per
ANNEXURE-B.
c. Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 4th
Respondent to effect the mutation in the name of the
Petitioner in respect of the schedule property;
d. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
to grant under the circumstance of the case in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner, a senior citizen, had initiated
proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007"),
seeking annulment of a gift deed. The said
application came to be dismissed by Respondent
No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated
19.12.2023. An appeal preferred thereagainst before
Respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner was
also dismissed by order dated 22.10.2024. Aggrieved
by the concurrent orders of the authorities below, the
Petitioner is before this Court.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. The Petitioner is the father of Respondent No.5 and
the grandfather of Respondent No.6. He is the
absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.105,
measuring 2 acres 35 guntas, with 6 guntas of
karab, situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Hebburu
Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The Petitioner has four
children, namely, Shivamma, Puttamma, Thimmaiah
and Venkatesh.
4. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that his
daughters Shivamma and Puttamma assured him
that they would take care of his maintenance, well-
being, and daily needs during his old age and, on the
basis of such assurance, had fraudulently procured a
gift deed dated 19.04.2023, registered before the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Consequent upon
registration of the said gift deed, the names of the
said daughters were mutated in the revenue records.
5. It is further asserted that soon thereafter, the
daughters neglected the Petitioner and failed to
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
provide him with food, shelter, and other basic
necessities. It is in this background that the
Petitioner filed an application under Section 23(1) of
the Act of 2007, seeking annulment of the gift deed
dated 19.04.2023.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the
Assistant Commissioner, one of the daughters,
Shivamma, expired. She was survived by her son,
Respondent No.6, who was brought on record as her
legal representative.
7. The other daughter, Respondent No.5 - Puttamma,
entered appearance before the Assistant
Commissioner and categorically stated that she had
no objection to the application being allowed.
However, Respondent No.6 filed objections
contending that the Petitioner was possessed of
several ancestral properties and that the application
under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 was
motivated by ill will and mala fides.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application
primarily on the ground that the gift deed did not
contain an express clause obligating the donees to
maintain the Petitioner. The appeal preferred by the
Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner also
came to be dismissed, affirming the reasoning of the
Assistant Commissioner.
9. Sri Narasimha Raju, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is an illiterate
senior citizen and that the gift deed was drafted at
the instance of his daughters, with the Petitioner
merely affixing his thumb impression. It is contended
that the Petitioner was unaware of the contents of
the gift deed and that the assurance to maintain him,
though forming the very basis of the transfer, was
deliberately omitted while drafting the document.
10. Learned counsel would further submit that
Respondent No.5, one of the donees under the gift
deed, has unequivocally admitted the Petitioner's
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
case by filing a memo dated 03.10.2023, expressing
no objection to the application being allowed. Once a
donee herself admits the circumstances pleaded by
the Petitioner, Respondent No.6, being only the son
of the deceased donee, cannot be permitted to raise
objections contrary thereto. It is urged that both the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner failed to appreciate these material
aspects and have adopted a hyper-technical
approach, defeating the beneficial object of the Act of
2007.
11. Sri D. Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.5, supports the submissions of the
Petitioner and submits that the writ petition deserves
to be allowed.
12. Respondent No.6, though served, has chosen to
remain unrepresented.
13. Heard Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the
Petitioner; Smt. Sarita Kulkarni, learned Additional
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
Government Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 to 4;
and Sri D. Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel for
Respondent No.5, Persued records.
14. The points that would arise for determination are:
1. Whether the Petitioner, being a senior
citizen, has made out a case for invoking
Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007, seeking annulment of the gift deed
dated 19.04.2023?
2. Whether an express recital in the gift deed
obligating the donees to maintain the
senior citizen is mandatory for invoking
Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007, or
whether such obligation can be inferred
from the surrounding circumstances and
conduct of the parties?
3. Whether the Assistant Commissioner and,
subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
were justified in rejecting the Petitioner's
application solely on the ground that the
gift deed does not contain an explicit
clause regarding maintenance of the
Petitioner?
4. Whether the admission made by
Respondent No.5, one of the donees under
the gift deed, by filing a memo expressing
no objection to annulment, has any legal
bearing on the validity of the objections
raised by Respondent No.6, who claims
through the deceased donee?
5. Whether Respondent No.6, being the legal
representative of a deceased donee, can
independently resist annulment of the gift
deed when the surviving donee has
admitted the foundational facts pleaded by
the Petitioner?
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. Whether the findings recorded by the
Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by
the Deputy Commissioner suffer from
perversity, non-consideration of material
evidence, or misapplication of the
beneficial provisions of the Act of 2007?
7. What order?
15. I answer the above points as follows:
16. Section 23 of Act of 2007 is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
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.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
(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.
17. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner,
being a senior citizen, has made out a case for
invoking Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007, seeking annulment of the gift deed dated
19.04.2023?
17.1. The Petitioner is admittedly a senior citizen
within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
The ownership of the property bearing Survey
No.105, Doddagollahalli Village, Hebburu Hobli,
Tumakuru Taluk, originally vested exclusively in
the Petitioner and is not in dispute.
17.2. The execution of the registered gift deed dated
19.04.2023 in favour of the Petitioner's
daughters is also undisputed. The controversy
centres around the circumstances under which
the transfer was made and the subsequent
conduct of the donees.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
17.3. The Petitioner has consistently pleaded that the
transfer was made on the assurance that his
daughters would take care of his food, shelter,
medical needs, and day-to-day well-being
during his old age. The pleadings further
disclose that soon after execution of the gift
deed, the Petitioner was neglected and
deprived of basic necessities, leaving him with
no option but to invoke Section 23.
17.4. Section 23, would be attracted where a senior
citizen parts with property in expectation of
care, and such expectation is defeated by
neglect or refusal. Once neglect after transfer is
pleaded and prima facie established, the
jurisdiction under Section 23 is clearly
attracted, and the authorities are required to
examine the matter from a welfare-centric
perspective.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
17.5. In the present case, the Petitioner's age,
illiteracy, rural background, the relationship
between the parties, and the admitted
subsequent neglect cumulatively establish that
the transfer was intrinsically linked to the
expectation of maintenance.
17.6. I'am therefore of the considered opinion that
the Petitioner has made out a clear, legally
sustainable, and statutorily cognisable case for
invoking Section 23(1) of the Act.
17.7. I Answer Point No.1 by holding that the
Petitioner, being a senior citizen, has
made out a case for invoking Section 23(1)
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking
annulment of the gift deed dated
19.04.2023.
18. Answer to Point No.2: Whether an express
recital in the gift deed obligating the donees to
maintain the senior citizen is mandatory for
invoking Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007, or
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
whether such obligation can be inferred from
the surrounding circumstances and conduct of
the parties?
18.1. The reasoning adopted by the Assistant
Commissioner and subsequently affirmed by
the Deputy Commissioner, that the absence of
an express clause in the gift deed disentitles
the Petitioner from invoking Section 23 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, is legally flawed and
proceeds on a fundamental misconception of
the statutory scheme.
18.2. Section 23(1) does not mandate that the
condition of maintenance must be expressly
incorporated in the instrument of transfer. The
legislative emphasis is not on the form of the
condition, but on the substance of the
transaction, the circumstances under which the
transfer was effected, and the subsequent
conduct of the transferee.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.3. I have considered this issue in my Judgment
dated 29.07.2024 in WP No. 202832 of
2019 Shobha Vs Anil Kumar, and I have
come to a conclusion that in view of para 14 of
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sudesh Chikkara -vs- Ramti Devi and
another1, an allegation made in an application
filed before the Assistant Commissioner that
there was a oral understanding for the senior
citizen to be taken care of, would be sufficient
requirement for compliance with subsection (1)
of Section 23.
18.4. In the present case, there is a clear and
categorical averment by the Petitioner that the
gift deed was got prepared and drafted by his
daughters; that the Petitioner was unaware of
the contents thereof; and that he executed the
gift deed solely on the express promise held out
1
Civil Appeal No.174/2021
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
by the daughters that they would take care of
his well-being. It is not in dispute that the
Petitioner is illiterate, does not know to read or
write, and has affixed only his thumb
impression to the document.
18.5. When a document is admittedly prepared and
drafted by the donees, and the donor is an
illiterate senior citizen, it would be wholly
unrealistic and legally untenable to expect the
donor to verify whether the deed contains a
clause safeguarding his right to maintenance.
This factual position stands further fortified by
the unequivocal admission of Respondent No.5,
one of the donees, who has categorically stated
that she has no objection for the petition to be
allowed, thereby admitting that the gift deed
was drafted by the daughters and not by the
father.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
18.6. In such circumstances, the omission of a
maintenance clause in the gift deed cannot be
treated as an informed, conscious, or voluntary
waiver by the Petitioner. On the contrary, when
a document is prepared exclusively by the
donees, any omission that operates to the
detriment of the donor necessarily calls for
heightened judicial scrutiny, particularly in
proceedings under a welfare statute.
18.7. The defence urged before the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
that the Petitioner owns other properties is
wholly irrelevant for the purposes of Section
23. The existence of other properties does not
dilute or extinguish the statutory duty of
children to take care of the well-being of their
parent. The Act does not predicate the
obligation of maintenance on the indigence of
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
the senior citizen, but on the failure of the
transferee to honour the assurance of care.
18.8. The gift in the present case was executed by
the Petitioner with the legitimate hope and
expectation that his daughters would look after
him in his old age. Once that expectation
stands defeated by neglect, the donees cannot
be permitted to continue to derive benefit
under the gift, more so when the document
itself was drafted by them and the donor is
illiterate.
18.9. I am therefore of the considered opinion that
the condition of maintenance under Section 23
is implicit when a senior citizen or parent
transfers his self-acquired property particularly
by way of gift or relinquishment, without
consideration in favour of his son or daughter.
The law must account for the social reality that
senior citizens act on trust, familial assurances,
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
and moral expectations rather than on legal
formalities.
18.10. In our society, aged parents rarely insist upon
written stipulations while transferring property
to their children. Such transfers are ordinarily
founded on social norms and moral obligations,
which the Act of 2007 seeks to protect and
enforce through statutory intervention.
18.11. The trusting nature of senior citizens, especially
in rural Karnataka, coupled with emotional and
financial dependence on their children, is a
social reality expressly recognised by the Act.
To insist upon an express recital of
maintenance in every such gift deed would
defeat the protective object of the statute and
render Section 23 nugatory.
18.12. I am therefore of the considered view that the
obligation to maintain a senior citizen can
validly be inferred from the surrounding
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
circumstances, the relationship between the
parties, and their subsequent conduct, and that
an express recital in the deed of transfer is not
mandatory for invoking Section 23(1) of the Act
of 2007.
18.13. For the purposes of Section 23(1) of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, the absence of an express
recital in a gift deed obligating the transferee to
maintain the senior citizen does not disentitle
the transferor from seeking annulment of the
transfer. The statute does not mandate a
written condition of maintenance; what is
material is whether, on the basis of pleadings,
surrounding circumstances, relationship of the
parties, and subsequent conduct, it can be
inferred that the transfer was made on the
assurance, express or implied, of care and
maintenance. Where a gift deed is drafted by
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
the donees and executed by an illiterate senior
citizen on trust and familial assurances, an
allegation of an oral understanding to provide
care is sufficient compliance with Section 23(1),
and insistence on an express contractual clause
would defeat the protective object of the Act.
18.14. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 by
holding that an express recital in the gift
deed obligating the donees to maintain the
senior citizen is not mandatory for
invoking Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007,
and that such obligation can be inferred
from the surrounding circumstances and
conduct of the parties.
19. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the Assistant
Commissioner and, subsequently, the Deputy
Commissioner were justified in rejecting the
Petitioner's application solely on the ground
that the gift deed does not contain an explicit
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
clause regarding maintenance of the
Petitioner?
19.1. The rejection of the Petitioner's application by
the Assistant Commissioner, and its affirmation
by the Deputy Commissioner, is founded almost
entirely on the absence of an express
maintenance clause in the gift deed.
19.2. Such an approach ignores material facts
pleaded and established on record, particularly:
19.2.1. That the gift deed was drafted by the
donees,
19.2.2. That the Petitioner had no meaningful
role in its preparation,
19.2.3. That he is illiterate and dependent, and
19.2.4. That one of the donees has admitted
the Petitioner's case
19.3. The authorities have failed to examine who
controlled the drafting process and whether the
donor had any real agency or understanding of
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
the contents. This omission is particularly grave
in proceedings under a welfare statute, where
vulnerability of the applicant is a central
consideration. The authorities under the Act
must not adopt a hyper-technical approach that
reduces the statute to a dead letter. Failure to
consider surrounding circumstances and
conduct of the parties would result in and
amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 23.
19.4. By rejecting the application solely on a
technical omission in a document admittedly
drafted by the donees, the authorities have, in
effect, rewarded misuse of trust and penalised
vulnerability of the senior citizen/parent, which
is impermissible in law.
19.5. The impugned orders therefore suffer from non-
application of mind, misdirection in law, and
disregard of the protective object of the Act.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
19.6. Section 23 of the Act of 2007 embodies the
doctrine of constructive fraud, a concept
distinct from fraud under the Indian Contract
Act. It proceeds not on proof of deceit in the
classical sense, but on the abuse of a position
of trust and dominance by the transferee over a
vulnerable senior citizen.
19.7. Where a senior citizen transfers property to a
close relative on the assurance, express or
implied, of care and maintenance, and such
assurance is subsequently breached, the law
treats the transfer as vitiated by constructive
fraud, irrespective of whether fraudulent intent
existed at the inception.
19.8. The statutory presumption under Section 23 is
thus triggered not by the language of the deed
alone, but by the failure of the transferee to
honour the moral and social obligation that
formed the basis of the transfer.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
19.9. In such cases, the Court is empowered to annul
the transfer to prevent unjust enrichment and
to restore dignity and security to the senior
citizen.
19.10. I Answer Point No. 3 by holding that the
Assistant Commissioner and,
subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner
were not justified in rejecting the
Petitioner's application solely on the
ground that the gift deed does not
contain an explicit clause regarding the
maintenance of the Petitioner.
20. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the admission
made by Respondent No.5, one of the donees
under the gift deed, by filing a memo
expressing no objection to annulment, has any
legal bearing on the validity of the objections
raised by Respondent No.6, who claims through
the deceased donee?
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
20.1. Respondent No.5 is an original donee under the
gift deed dated 19.04.2023. Her legal status is
not peripheral; she is a principal beneficiary of
the impugned transaction. Her conduct,
statements, and admissions therefore assume
considerable legal significance in proceedings
under Section 23 of the Act.
20.2. The memo dated 03.10.2023, filed by
Respondent No.5 before the Assistant
Commissioner, expressly records that she has
no objection to the application filed by the
Petitioner being allowed. This memo is neither
qualified nor conditional. It constitutes a clear
and conscious admission of the Petitioner's
case.
20.3. Under settled principles of evidence, an
admission is substantive evidence, and unless
satisfactorily explained or withdrawn, it binds
the maker. In proceedings under a summary
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
welfare statute, such an admission assumes
even greater relevance.
20.4. The admissions made by transferees in Section
23 proceedings cannot be brushed aside lightly
and must be accorded due weight, particularly
where they corroborate the senior citizen's plea
of neglect.
20.5. The admission by Respondent No.5 directly
supports the Petitioner's assertions that:
20.5.1. The transfer was made on assurance of
care,
20.5.2. Such assurance was not honoured, and
20.5.3. Annulment of the gift deed is justified.
20.6. Respondent No.6 claims only through the
deceased donee, Shivamma. His objections,
therefore, cannot be examined in isolation,
divorced from the conduct and admissions of
the surviving donee.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
20.7. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner have completely ignored this
admission and have proceeded as though the
matter was one of adversarial contest between
equals. This omission strikes at the root of their
findings.
20.8. I'am therefore of the considered opinion that
the admission of Respondent No.5 has direct
and decisive legal bearing on the
maintainability of objections raised by
Respondent No.6.
20.9. I therefore Answer Point No.4 by holding
that the admission made by Respondent
No.5, one of the donees under the gift
deed, by filing a memo expressing no
objection to annulment, has a very
important legal bearing on the validity of
the objections raised by Respondent No.6,
who claims through the deceased donee.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
21. Answer to Point No.5: Whether Respondent
No.6, being the legal representative of a
deceased donee, can independently resist
annulment of the gift deed when the surviving
donee has admitted the foundational facts
pleaded by the Petitioner?
21.1. At the threshold, it requires to be noticed that
Respondent No.6 was not an original party to
the transaction culminating in the execution of
the gift deed dated 19.04.2023. His
impleadment arises solely on account of the
death of his mother, who herself was a donee
under the said gift deed, and not by virtue of
any independent transaction or right.
21.2. It is a settled and elementary principle of law
that a legal representative can neither improve
upon nor enlarge the rights of the person
through whom he claims. Any right asserted by
Respondent No.6 is, therefore, purely
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
derivative, contingent, and inseparably bound
to the validity of the transfer in favour of the
original donee.
21.3. Proceedings under Section 23 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 are not proceedings for
adjudication of title in the conventional civil law
sense. The jurisdiction exercised thereunder is
a special statutory jurisdiction, welfare-oriented
in character, intended to examine whether a
transfer by a senior citizen stands vitiated due
to failure of the transferee to provide basic
amenities and physical needs, as contemplated
by the statute.
21.4. Once the jurisdictional facts required under
Section 23 are established, namely, that the
transfer was made by a senior citizen and that
the transferee has failed to honour the
obligation of maintenance, the consequence of
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
annulment follows by operation of law. Upon
such annulment, the transfer itself stands
effaced, and all rights, interests, and claims
flowing from or traceable to such transfer
necessarily perish with it.
21.5. In this legal framework, it is impermissible for a
derivative claimant to seek to sustain the
transfer by raising defences that were either
unavailable to, or consciously abandoned by,
the original transferee. The legal heirs of a
transferee cannot be permitted to frustrate or
dilute the statutory remedy by interposing
defences which the principal party has chosen
not to pursue.
21.6. In the present case, the surviving donee has
unequivocally admitted the foundational facts
pleaded by the Petitioner, including the
circumstances surrounding execution of the gift
deed and the failure to discharge the obligation
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
of care and maintenance. Such admission is
substantive in nature and lends direct
corroboration to the invocation of Section 23.
21.7. To permit Respondent No.6 to raise
independent objections in the face of such
admission would amount to allowing a
derivative claimant to override the position
taken by a principal party to the transaction,
thereby unsettling, settled principles governing
admissions, derivative rights, and
representative capacity.
21.8. The objection raised by Respondent No.6
further proceeds on an implicit assumption that
he is entitled to assert an interest in the subject
property independent of the welfare, dignity,
and subsistence of the Petitioner. Such an
assumption is legally unsustainable and
fundamentally inconsistent with both the
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
scheme and the protective object of the Act of
2007.
21.9. It is a settled position of Indian law that a son
or daughter does not acquire any vested,
accrued, or enforceable right in the self-
acquired property of a parent during the
lifetime of the parent. Such property remains
the absolute and exclusive domain of the
parent, having been acquired through his or her
own labour, effort, and earnings, often
accumulated over decades of hardship and
personal sacrifice.
21.10. The Act of 2007 does not create or recognise
any automatic proprietary entitlement in
favour of children. Instead, it regulates the
consequences of a transfer where the
transferee, having received the benefit of
property, fails to honour the reciprocal
obligation of care that formed the basis of
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
such transfer. Section 23 thus functions as a
statutory safeguard against unjust enrichment
arising from neglect or abandonment of senior
citizens.
21.11. When a parent, after having discharged
lifelong parental obligations, transfers
property in favour of a child, such transfer is
founded on a legitimate expectation, expressly
recognised by the statute, that the child will
provide care, dignity, and protection in the
parent's old age. The benefit of property
cannot, therefore, be severed from the
responsibility that accompanies it.
21.12. In the present case, the property in question
is not ancestral property in which any
respondent could assert a birthright. It is the
self-acquired property of the Petitioner.
Neither Respondent No.5 nor Respondent
No.6 can, therefore, assert any independent
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
entitlement to such property divorced from
the Petitioner's welfare and subsistence.
21.13. Respondent No.6 does not claim any original
or independent right. His claim is entirely
derivative, tracing through his deceased
mother. Once the transfer in favour of the
donees stands vitiated under Section 23 on
account of neglect and constructive fraud, all
derivative claims necessarily collapse as a
matter of law.
21.14. Permitting Respondent No.6 to assert an
interest in the property without discharging,
or even acknowledging, the obligation to care
for the Petitioner would amount to conferring
a legal advantage unaccompanied by statutory
responsibility. Such an interpretation would
defeat the protective purpose of Section 23
and render the statutory remedy illusory.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
21.15. This Court therefore holds, as a matter of law
and statutory interpretation, that neither a
son nor a daughter, nor any person claiming
through them, can assert any right, title, or
interest in the self-acquired property of a
parent once the statutory conditions for
annulment under Section 23 are satisfied.
21.16. Respondent No.6 accordingly lacks locus
standi, both in law and in equity, to resist the
annulment of the gift deed or to claim any
legal or equitable interest in the subject
property.
21.17. In proceedings under Section 23 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the jurisdiction
exercised is a special statutory jurisdiction
directed at examining whether a transfer of
property by a senior citizen stands vitiated on
account of failure of the transferee to honour
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
the condition, express or implied, of providing
care and maintenance, and not an
adjudication of title in the conventional civil
law sense. Once the statutory conditions for
annulment are satisfied, the transfer stands
undone by operation of law, and all rights
flowing from or traceable to such transfer
necessarily fall with it. A legal representative
or descendant of a transferee, having only a
derivative claim, cannot assert any
independent right or resist annulment by
raising defences that were unavailable to, or
abandoned by, the original transferee,
particularly where the surviving donee has
admitted the foundational facts justifying
invocation of Section 23. Further, a son or
daughter acquires no vested or enforceable
right in the self-acquired property of a parent
during the parent's lifetime, and cannot retain
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
or claim benefit of such property divorced
from the statutory obligation of care
recognised under the Act.
21.18. I Answer Point No.5 by holding that
Respondent No.6, being the legal
representative of a deceased donee,
cannot independently resist annulment of
the gift deed when the surviving donee
has admitted the foundational facts
pleaded by the Petitioner.
22. Answer to Point No.6: Whether the findings
recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and
affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner suffer
from perversity, non-consideration of material
evidence, or misapplication of the beneficial
provisions of the Act of 2007?
22.1. A holistic examination of the impugned orders
reveals not a mere error of reasoning, but a
systemic misapplication of the statutory
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
framework governing Section 23 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007. The authorities have
adopted a narrow, document-centric approach,
treating the absence of an express maintenance
clause in the gift deed as determinative, while
disregarding the wider factual, social, and
statutory context in which the transfer
occurred.
22.2. Such an approach is directly contrary to the
principles governing interpretation of welfare
legislation and stands in conflict with the law
laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court,
as discussed while answering Point Nos.1 to 5.
The impugned orders demonstrate a pattern of
selective consideration of material, resulting in
findings that are legally unsustainable.
22.3. In particular, the authorities have failed to
consider material and relevant circumstances
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
which were central to the applicability of
Section 23, including:
22.3.1. The advanced age, illiteracy, and
consequent dependence of the
Petitioner, which are not incidental facts
but foundational considerations under a
statute intended to protect vulnerable
senior citizens;
22.3.2. The undisputed fact that the gift deed
was drafted at the instance of the
donees, with the Petitioner having no
role in the preparation or structuring of
the document, a circumstance directly
bearing on the absence of an express
maintenance clause and the allegation
of misuse of trust;
22.3.3. The categorical and unqualified
admission of Respondent No.5, one of
the original donees, expressing no
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
objection to annulment of the gift deed,
which constituted substantive
corroborative material supporting the
Petitioner's plea of neglect and breach
of obligation; and
22.3.4. The purely derivative nature of the
claim of Respondent No.6, whose
objections could not, in law, override
the admission of a principal party or
survive annulment of the root
transaction, as held while answering
Point No.5.
22.4. The failure to consider the aforesaid
circumstances amounts to non-consideration of
relevant material and reflects a misdirection in
law. It is well settled that an order passed by a
statutory authority which ignores germane
material, or proceeds on an incomplete factual
foundation, is vitiated by perversity.
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
22.5. The perversity in the impugned orders is further
evident from the fact that the authorities
treated Section 23 as if it required proof of an
express contractual stipulation of maintenance,
thereby importing concepts alien to the
statutory scheme. As held while answering
Point Nos.2 and 3, Section 23 operates on the
basis of express or implied conditions, and its
invocation cannot be defeated by formal
omissions in a document drafted by the
transferees themselves.
22.6. The authorities have also failed to appreciate
that proceedings under Section 23 do not
involve adjudication of title simpliciter, but
require an examination of whether the
continuance of the transfer would result in
unjust enrichment of the transferee at the cost
of the senior citizen's dignity and subsistence.
This failure reflects a fundamental
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
misunderstanding of the nature and scope of
their jurisdiction.
22.7. Welfare legislation, particularly one enacted to
safeguard senior citizens from neglect and
exploitation, cannot be administered in a
mechanical or formalistic manner. An approach
that is indifferent to vulnerability, dependence,
and misuse of trust not only defeats the object
of the statute, but renders its protections
illusory.
22.8. Orders passed by authorities under Section 23
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are vitiated by
perversity where the authorities adopt a
narrow, document-centric approach and fail to
consider material surrounding circumstances
relevant to the vulnerability of the senior
citizen, including the transferor's age, illiteracy
and dependence, the fact that the transfer
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
instrument was drafted by the transferee,
admissions made by an original donee, and the
purely derivative nature of objections raised by
legal representatives. Mechanical insistence on
an express maintenance clause, without
examining implied conditions and subsequent
conduct, amounts to misapplication of the
statutory scheme. Such non-consideration of
relevant material and misunderstanding of the
welfare-oriented jurisdiction under Section 23
renders the concurrent findings legally
unsustainable and warrants supervisory
interference.
22.9. I answer Point No.6 by holding that the
concurrent findings recorded by the
Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by
the Deputy Commissioner are therefore
vitiated by perversity, non-application of
mind, non-consideration of material
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
evidence, and misapplication of the
beneficial provisions of the Act of 2007.
The said findings cannot be sustained and
warrant interference by this Court.
23. Answer to Point No.8:What order?
23.1. In view of the answers to the foregoing points,
particularly Point Nos. 1 to 6 the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
23.2. Before parting with the matter, this Court
deems it necessary to reiterate that the dignity,
autonomy, and security of senior citizens lie at
the heart of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The
statute recognises that old age often brings
physical frailty, emotional dependence, and
diminished bargaining power. Transfers of
property by senior citizens to their children or
close relatives are rarely commercial or
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
calculated acts; they are, more often than not,
gestures of trust, affection, and hope for care.
23.3. When such trust is breached, and the senior
citizen is rendered neglected or vulnerable, the
law cannot remain a silent spectator. Section
23 is a legislative affirmation that age, trust,
and vulnerability cannot be converted into
instruments of exploitation. Courts and
authorities are therefore duty-bound to ensure
that the autonomy of senior citizens is
protected, not merely in form, but in substance,
by undoing transactions that operate unjustly
against them.
23.4. In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos. 1
to 6 and having regard to the object and
scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, I pass
the following:
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283
WP No. 13313 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the order passed by 3rd
respondent dated 19.12.2023 in case
No.PA.PO.SAM and SENIOR
NA.RA.KA.SAM:32/23-24 at Annexure-B is
quashed. Consequently, the order at
Annexure-A passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 22-10-2024 in case
No.M.A.G(1)/02/2024 is also quashed. iii. The application filed by the Petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is allowed.
iv. This gift deed dated 19.04.2023 was obtained by the donees by misuse of the trust reposed by a senior citizen, and that the transfer stands vitiated by constructive fraud within the meaning and scope of Section 23 of the Act of
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283 WP No. 13313 of 2025 HC-KAR 2007, on account of failure to honour the assurance, express or implied, of providing care and maintenance to the Petitioner. v. Consequently, the gift deed dated 19.04.2023, registered in the office of the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar in respect of land bearing Survey No.105, measuring 2 acres 35 guntas with 6 guntas karab, situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Hebburu Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, is hereby annulled and declared void. vi. The concerned revenue authorities are directed to restore the name of the Petitioner as absolute owner of the aforesaid property in all revenue records forthwith, and in any event within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. vii. It is made clear that Respondent No.6, being a derivative claimant through a deceased donee, shall not assert or claim any independent right,
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6283 WP No. 13313 of 2025 HC-KAR title, or interest in respect of the subject property, consequent upon the annulment of the gift deed.
viii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23