Partly allowed

Smt B Rani v. the Assistant Commissioner and President

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/5107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the quashing of her gift deed by an Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The High Court allowed the petition, restoring the deed, but directed the property holders to pay maintenance to the mother.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 03.12.2021 set aside; Gift deed restored; Petitioner entitled to restoration in revenue records; Petitioner and other children directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- each per month to Respondent No.

Smt B Rani Vs the Assistant Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5107 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. B. RANI W/O SADANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GANGASANDRA, MELUKOTE POST, TUMAKURU -572 126.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF THE PARENT TRIBUNAL, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU -572 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT SHIVAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT DIWANARA BEEDI, MANDIPET, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶15

SRI T B LOKESH S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DODDAVEERANAHALLI, 'THOTADA MANE', BELLAVI HOBLI, C. NANDI HALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK -572 117.

¶16

SRI. B. KUMARASWAMY S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶19

R/AT YAJAMANARA BEEDI, MANDIPET, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N. HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C.G GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is by the petitioner-daughter aggrieved

¶27

by the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the respondent No.1 while allowing the petition filed by respondent No.2-mother under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

¶28

Citizens Act, 2007 had declared the Gift Deed dated 31.03.2017 executed and registered by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner as null and void.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 had unconditionally transferred the property in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Gift

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶31

Deed. That there is no provision or a clause in the said deed of gift providing for any undertaking or assurance to maintain respondent No.2 -mother. That in the absence of any such covenant and allegation of breach of such covenant, invocation of provision of the Act, 2007 is untenable and allowing the same is illegal. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 through Video Conferencing submits that after the order passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner canceling deed of gift as above, respondent No.2 mother has conveyed the property subject matter of said Gift Deed in favour of her son Sadashivaiah.

¶33

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 submits that though the deed of gift did not contain the clause providing for maintenance of the respondent No.2mother, obligation to maintain the mother is what the Assistant Commissioner has taken care in terms of the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶35

provisions of the Act, 2007. As such he submits, order canceling Gift deed cannot be found fault with.

¶36

Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs

¶37

Ramti Devi and anr reported in 2022 SCC Online 1684 adverting to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act at paragraph 14 has held as under:

¶38

"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."

¶39

In the instant case neither there is any provision made in the gift deed nor there is any pleading in the application filed by the respondent No.2-mother before the respondent No.1-The Assistant Commissioner as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court extracted hereinabove. Writ petition thus deserves to be allowed and is allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, following:

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. The deed of gift is restored. In view of the restoration of the Gift Deed petitioner is also entitled for restoration of her name in the revenue records.

¶44

At this juncture learned HCGP submit that a provision be made for maintaining respondent No.2. He submits that the respondent No.2 has four children including petitioner and they are well settled. The Assistant Commissioner has not passed any order with regard to provision/direction to the children of the respondent No.2 to pay maintenance. This aspect of the matter is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand it is urged that petitioner has been taking care of the respondent No.2 over 30 years though there are other children of the respondent No.2.

¶45

In that view of the matter this Court is of the considered view the order of the Assistant Commissioner be modified. Accordingly petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and son of respondent No.2 namely Sadashivaiah who

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:31031 WP No. 5107 of 2022

¶48

purportedly purchased the property in question are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each per month to respondent

¶49

No.2 towards her maintenance. Respondent No.2 is entitled to recover the said amount from the petitioner and

¶50

her said children in the manner known to law.

¶51

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt B Rani v. the Assistant Commissioner and President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B Rani v. the Assistant Commissioner and President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H Ananthakumar Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt. Bramarambha Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Sri. v. Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Krishna Murthy Vs M Manohar

Smt Padma Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board