Son appealed against a Single Judge's direction that donees of gift deeds from his 85-year-old mother continue paying Rs.7,00,000 each annually as maintenance per their oral understanding, evidenced by bank statements showing Rs.48 lakh paid between 2016-2019. The Division Bench found no merit and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.333 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MADIKERI SUB DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.
3 . THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KARNATAKA MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.
4 . POOJA @ SANJANA SUBIAH D/O. LATE APPARANDA SUBIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 243, 2ND CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUKRUTA R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R2 & 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.9943/2022 (GM-RES) AND EXPUNGE ALL THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH GIFT DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC,.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. H.N. Manjunath Prasad for the appellant, learned advocate Smt. Rupa Ron for learned advocate Smt. R. Sukruta for respondent-caveator No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
was being paid to the petitioner between 20162019.
Smt. Apparanda Shanthi Bopanna was the original petitioner who challenged in the writ petition order dated 22.03.2022 passed by respondent No.4-the Appellate Tribunal, Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act and the Deputy Commissioner Madikeri. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal upturned the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal. The prayer was therefore made by the petitioner to affirm the said order dated 15.04.2021.
petitioner had four sons. Respondent No.1 happened to be the third son whereas, as stated above, respondent No.2 was the daughter of the first son of the petitioner late Apparanda Subiah.
3.2 Two gift deeds were got executed in respect of the area of coffee plantation land. Gift deed dated 14.09.2016 was executed by the petitioner-mother in favor of respondent No.1-Son whereby, 11 Acres of coffee plantation yielding substantial income in Sy No.47/1 re-numbered as Sy.No.47/8 was gifted to respondent No.1. Second gift deed was dated 17.09.2016 which was executed for other 11 Acres of the said land in the very survey number in favor of respondent No.2.
mother shall continue to enjoy the income from the same as was enjoying before the execution. It was stated that it was further agreed that in case of her inability, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take care of the petitioner. It was the case that the gift deeds were equated only in order to protect and defend rights in view of the institution of Civil Suit by the eldest Son as above.
3.4 The petitioner averred in her petition about the agreement that each of respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.7,00,000/- each every year to the petitioner out of the proceeds of the Coffee Estate gifted to them by the petitioner. It was also further stated that pursuant to the said understanding, certain payments were made to the petitioner between the year 2016 till 2019 to the extent of Rs.48,00,000/-, however, from the year 2019-20, respondent Nos.1 and 2 neglected the petitioner and failed to pay the sums as agreed. It was also apprehended by the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been trying to alienate the properties gifted to them.
3.5 It was therefore that the petitioner initiated proceedings before respondent No.3-Tribunal under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) praying to
revoke the gift deeds dated 14.09.2016 and 17.09.2016 aforementioned. Respondent No.3-the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos.1 and 2, passed order revoking the gift deeds. The said order dated 15.04.2021 was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal which set aside the said order resulting into filing of the writ petition by the mother which came to be disposed of as above by learned Single Judge.
3.6 It appears that the Appellate Tribunal – the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 22.03.2022 viewed that there was no condition in the gift deeds that the beneficiaries of the gift deeds would take care of the mother. It was reasoned that therefore the Assistant Commissioner could not have cancelled the gift deeds.
3.7 As noted above, learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition although, sustained the order of the Deputy Commissioner, gave directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2-donees to put the petitioner in a position of status qua ante , for receipt of money as maintenance which amount she had been receiving between 2016-2019, it is to be recollected that during the said period, as agreed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 they were paying Rs.7,00,000/- each, every year to the petitioner. This position was
restored by learned Single Judge. It was observed that the Act obligated the donee to pay maintenance to the extent of Rs.10,000/- for the amount that is projected by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they would pay Rs.25,000/- per month. However, since the petitioner was paid Rs.14,00,000/- annually as above and in that regard, respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not escape under any excuse.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the reasoning supplied by the Appellate Tribunal in his order dated 22.03.2022 to state that the same was eminently legal. It was next submitted that the contents of the gift deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favor
of the appellant did not mention any quantum of amount to be paid or to be transferred in favor of respondent No.1 by the Transferee appellant – the son. It was sought to be submitted that the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- per year to be paid to the mother was without any basis.
4.2 Referring to the different judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, of this High Court and other High Courts, learned Single Judge dealt with the aspect that in the gift deeds, the condition of maintaining the petitioner-mother was an oral understanding. Finding was recorded, by learned Single Judge that as per the oral understanding, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were to pay Rs.7,00,000/each per year to the petitioner-mother and that the payment made to the extent of Rs.48,00,000/- in that regard during the period from 2016 to 2019 was evidenced by the documents in the nature of Bank statements etc,.
4.2.1 Learned Single Judge made the following observations, extracting from paragraph 9 of the order,
“The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner did own 48 acres of coffee plantation as observed hereinabove. Out of which 24 acres goes away in the year 2016 pursuant to a decree in O.S.No.174 of 2016 filed by her eldest son Sri A.B. Biddappa seeking specific performance. What remained with the petitioner from 2016 was only 24 acres of coffee
plantation to which gift deeds are made in favour of respondents 1 and 2 – one on 14-09-2016 and the other on 17-09-2016 respectively to an extent of 11 acres each. Remaining property was the house in which the petitioner is staying.”
4.2.2 It was further observed in the same paragraph,
“The gift deeds are claimed on an understanding that respondents 1 and 2 shall each pay a sum of Rs.7/- lakhs every year to the petitioner. To demonstrate the oral understanding, bank statements are appended to the petition which 10 would clearly show that between 2016 to 2019 Rs.48/- lakhs was transferred in total to the account of the petitioner year on year by respondents 1 and 2. There was no problem of any kind between respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner. From 2019-20, the respondents failed to deposit even a rupee.”
4.2.3 It was recorded by learned Single Judge that it is germane to notice that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have accepted the order of the Deputy Commissioner, that order of the Deputy Commissioner nowhere provides that the maintenance will have to be paid in terms of the Act, the maintenance which was being annually paid was required to be paid to the petitioner for life time.
4.2.4 Further findings were recorded as under,
“...The order of the Deputy Commissioner is maintenance which is being paid annually to be paid without fail till the lifetime of the petitioner as accepted by respondents 1 and 2. What is being paid by respondents 1 and 2 is a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- in total every year – Rs.7,00,000/-
each annually. This is evident from the Bank statements between 2016-2019 and that is admitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that respondents 1 and 2 did transfer Rs.48,00,000/-. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 cannot now contend that they would not pay maintenance to the petitioner till her life time.”
5.1 Learned Single Judge however, noticed with relevance that the petitioner is 85 years old who will not be in position to take care of the property even if the order of Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the property is given back to the mother. The essential cause for the petitioner to knock the doors of the Authority-Tribunal was for her maintenance.
money, and their liability to pay the annual amount they have been paying till 2019 to the mother towards maintenance.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of.
Sd/(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing the donees under the gift deeds to pay annual maintenance to the elderly mother despite no written condition in the deeds.
Whether the writ appeal warranted interference with the order dated 20.12.2023 in W.P.No.9943/2022.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri A.B. Ganapathy
Smt. Apparanda Shanthi Bopanna
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal represented by its President, the Assistant Commissioner
The Appellate Tribunal Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act and the Deputy Commissioner
Pooja @ Sanjana Subiah
N.V. Anjaria
K.V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
