Allowed

Mr Lakshnarashimha v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/5149/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order cancelling a registered gift deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that without a specific clause mandating basic needs, the section does not apply, quashing the cancellation order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.12.2016 cancelling the registered gift deed is quashed.

Mr Lakshnarashimha Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27631 WP No. 5149 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. LAKSHNARASHIMHA S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT SUDHAMANAGAR VILLAGE, KUAVANAHALLI, THAYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK OFFICE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. RANGAMANI D/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶14

MR. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O NARASHIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶15

MRS.SUNANDA W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶16

RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 ARE R/AT SUDHAMANAGAR VILLAGE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:27631 WP No. 5149 of 2017

¶19

KUAVANAHALLI, THAYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.

¶20

MR. NARASHIMHARAJU S/O NARASHIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶21

RESIDING AT SUDHAMANAGAR VILLAGE, KUAVANAHALLI, THAYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.

¶22

SUB-REGISTRAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶23

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1, R6 & R7; SRI. M.S. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R3 & R5 ARE LR'S OF R2; SRI K.R. GANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 ON 21.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17 OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT 2007 IS REPUGANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF INDIAN BAR COUNCIL ACT AND SECTION 30 OF ADVOCATES OF ACT.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27631 WP No. 5149 of 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The respondent No.2 executed a registered gift deed dated 23.3.2011 conveying Kaneshumari No.67/14/04 measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet situated at Sudhamanagar village, Kuavanahalli, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Talulk, Bengaluru Rural District to the petitioner. Following the registered gift deed, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the property register maintained by the competent Authority.

¶31

Given these circumstances, the respondent No.2 filed a petitioner under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 to declare the registered gift deed as null and void and restore the subject property stating that the petitioner has not provided basic physical needs and basic amenities to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 passed the impugned order canceling the registered gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, and directed to make necessary changes in the encumbrance certificate, and also to reflect the name of the respondent No.2 in the property records, and also change the katha in favour of the respondent No.2. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the absence of any clause in the gift deed to provide basic amenities and physical needs, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 lacks authority. In support, reliance is placed on

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:27631 WP No. 5149 of 2017

¶35

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramti Devi and others - (2023)(241) AIC 12) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WP No.11991/2021 and connected writ petition (DD 16.1.2024).

¶36

The learned HCGP argued that the order passed by the Respondent No.1 is in accordance with law.

¶37

A review of the registered gift deed indicates that it does not include any clause requiring the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs. The key issue is whether, in the absence of such a condition, the competent Authority can exercise power under Section 23 of the Act to cancel any registered deed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara (supra) ruled that if the twin conditions outlined under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 23(1) of the Act are not satisfied, the order of cancellation of the registered gift deed by the respondent No.1 cannot be upheld. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The petition is allowed.

¶40

ii) The impugned order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶41

iii) The order passed by this Court shall not having any bearing on the pending suit filed by the respondent No.5 in OS

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:27631 WP No. 5149 of 2017

¶44

No.336/2012 for partition and separate possession of the subject property and the Trial Court to adjudicate the rights of the parties therein strictly on the available material placed on record without being influenced any of the observation made in this order.

¶45

All contentions are kept open.

¶46

Sd/ - JUDGE

¶47

BKM

Mr Lakshnarashimha v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Lakshnarashimha v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

D S Ashok Kumar (Dy. S.P) Vs the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission

Sri K Somashekar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M T Vishwanath Vs D.C. Girish

Sri Aithappa Poojary Vs the Protection Officer

M/S A.V. Dhammangi Vision Foundation Vs Reserve Bank of India

Dr B v Rchandre Gowda Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies