Allowed

Smt. v. a Lakshmi v Sri v Anjinappa

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2022WP/13455/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an Assistant Commissioner's order voiding an unconditional gift deed under the Senior Citizen Act. The petitioner undertook to pay maintenance to her father monthly, allowing the transfer to remain valid, with revival of the quashed order contingent on her default.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned order. Petitioner granted reprieve subject to undertaking of monthly maintenance payment to the senior citizen father.

Smt. v a Lakshmi Vs Sri v Anjinappa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13455 OF 2017(GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. V A LAKSHMI, D/O V ANJINAPPA, W/O K CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO.348, GURUKRUPA NILAYA, BELATHURU, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560 067.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.JEEVAN KUMAR B S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. V ANJINAPPA, S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/A VAGATAAGRAHARA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK-562114.

¶12

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

THE SUB REGISTRAR, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. G UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.21.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASST. COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR, SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEX-C.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner-daughter is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by respondent-Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Sec.23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby the subject Gift Deed having been voided, a direction has been issued for the restoration of revenue entries in favour of 1^st respondent-father. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶23

¶24

“ The transaction made vide Registered Gift deed No.HSK-1-11245/2012-13 DATED 14-022013 is hereby set aside under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act-2007, Respondent No.2 is hereby ordered to restore the entries in the name of the Petitioner in the Registration documents under intimation to this authority. Directed Tahsildar of Hoskote Taluk to take necessary steps to incorporate the RTC in the previous owner’s name after the cancellation of gift deed by the Sub-registrar considering the MR H5/2014-15 dated 21-10-2014 as Null and Void.”

¶25

After service of notice, the 1^st respondent has

¶26

entered appearance through his counsel and filed the Statement of Objections opposing the writ petition. Learned AGA represents the official respondents. Writ petition is being opposed by making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶28

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the

¶29

¶30

Gift Deed in question is not an ‘onerous gift’ at all, the

¶31

same being unconditional. Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in banking upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.52019/2015 (GM-RES) between Smt.G.R.Jayalatha

¶32

vs. The Chief Secretary & others disposed off on 15.10.2019 in support of his contention that if the Gift Deed is not subject to conditions mentioned in Sec.23 of the Act, the said provision cannot be invoked at all for invalidation of the transaction.

¶33

Petitioner being one of the four daughters in all fairness undertakes before this Court that she would credit Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) every month with 5% annual increment, to the bank account of 1^st respondent, should he furnish it or deposit before the Assistant Commissioner for the benefit of said respondent till he breathes his last. Petitioner graciously agrees that the amount in deposit as accumulated on month to month

¶34

¶35

basis at the rate of Rs.10,000/- in the Registry also be permitted to be released to the 1^st respondent. The grace coupled with the obligation to maintain the parent strengthens the claim of the petitioner to the relief at the hands of constitutional court.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the undertaking of making monthly payment of Rs.12,000/- for a consecutive period of three months, the impugned order now quashed shall revive like phoenix on its own and in that event the entries in the Revenue Records shall be restored in favour of 1^st respondent.

¶37

The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in accumulated deposit, to the respondent-Assistant

¶38

Commissioner forthwith who shall make all endeavors to

¶39

¶40

disburse it to the 1^st respondent at the earliest and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶41

Costs made easy.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43