Allowed

Smt Prabhavathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024WP/4405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gift deed conditional on providing amenities to parents was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner without notice or hearing, and confirmed in appeal. The High Court held the orders violated natural justice, quashed both, and remanded for fresh consideration after hearing, with a Rs.50,000 deposit directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-B) and 8.8.2022 (Annexure-E) quashed; matter remanded to Respondent No.2 after hearing; petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000 with Respondent No.3 entitled to with

Smt Prabhavathamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:32283 WP No. 4405 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4405 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRABHAVATHAMMA D/O LATE K.V. VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A WARD NO.19, K.P. BEEDHI, AZADH CHOWK CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICHBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶14

SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE K.V. VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.19 K.P. BEEDHI, AZADH CHOWK CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125.

¶15

SMT. SUJATHAMMA D/O LATE K.V. VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BAGALUR CROSS, BANGALORE.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:32283 WP No. 4405 of 2023

¶18

SMT. SUGUNA D/O LATE K.V. VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.19 K.P. BEEDHI, AZADH CHOWK CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRT. RAMACHANDRA DESU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR IN CASE NO.G.A.K/APPEAL/01/J2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner challenges the order passed by Respondent No. 1, which confirmed the order by Respondent No. 2 canceling the gift deed executed in favor of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶26

The petitioner's father executed a registered gift deed in favor of the petitioner on 7.12.2009, conveying property bearing Old Municipal Khata No. 1126/4030, assigned New Khata No.1306/1216, measuring 286 square feet, situated at

¶27

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:32283 WP No. 4405 of 2023

¶30

Sri Kannikaparameshwari Road, Municipal II Division, Aazadchouk, Chinthamani Town. One of the clauses in the gift deed required the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs for the petitioner’s father and Respondent No. 3 during their lifetime.

¶31

The petitioner's father and Respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Act, 2007”), claiming that the petitioner had failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs. Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order, which was later confirmed by Respondent No. 1 in an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order without issuing notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He further contends that the petitioner is paying Rs. 2,000/- as monthly maintenance, thus complying with the clause in the gift deed.

¶33

In response, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 argues that the impugned order was passed after providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. He asserts that since the petitioner failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs, the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not warrant interference.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:32283 WP No. 4405 of 2023

¶36

After a careful examination of the arguments presented by both parties, it is noted that:

¶37

The petitioner's father, during his lifetime, executed the registered gift deed with the condition that the petitioner would provide basic amenities and physical needs. The petition under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 was filed on 23.03.2022 and adjourned to 30.03.2022 and 23.02.2023. Respondent No. 2 recorded the petitioner's absence and passed the impugned order on the same day without issuing notice or providing an opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2, which was confirmed by Respondent No. 1, is not legally sustainable.

¶38

In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure–B and the order dated 8.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-E are hereby quashed.

¶42

(iii) The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the petition filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:32283 WP No. 4405 of 2023

¶45

after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.3 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶46

iv) The petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the respondent No.2 on or before the next date of hearing. Upon such deposit, the respondent No. 3 is at liberty to withdraw the said amount.

¶47

v) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶48

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶49

Smt Prabhavathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prabhavathamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Trivedi Vs M/S. Sorting Hat Solutions Private Limited

Mr Narayana Moolya Vs Bharath Co-Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Roopa Amit Shekhar Vs Canara Bank

Ananda K Vs Commissionerate of Health and Family Welfare Services

Smt Sapna Pramod Vs the Secretary