Allowed¶55

Sri D T Murthappa v. Smt Anusuyamma

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Maintainability of Section 23 proceedings

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/12731/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, W.P. 12731/2022 (GM-RES), decided 15.12.2025 by E.S. Indiresh J. Keywords: Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007; gift deed by senior citizen; no recital/condition of care; maintainability of proceedings; cancellation of gift; Urmila Dixit 2025 IN SC 20; Sudesh Chhikara AIR ONLINE SC 1357; Davanagere Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner orders quashed; Annexures-B, G, H.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure-H) and Order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent-authorities quashed. ¶55

Sri D T Murthappa Vs Smt Anusuyamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; Order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure-H) and Order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent-authorities quashed.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are maintainable, given that the registered Gift Deed dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure-B) executed by respondent No.1 contains no condition/recital requiring the petitioners to take care of her.

¶37

Court's answer

It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 executed the registered Gift Deed dated 12.10.2020 in favour of the petitioners (Annexure-B); the recitals indicate the deed was executed pursuant to a promise by respondent No.1 for the well-being of the petitioners.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Following the declaration of law in Urmila Dixit (2025 IN SC 20) and Sudesh Chhikara (AIR ONLINE SC 1357), since there is no recital in the Gift Deed at Annexure-B that the petitioners have to take care of respondent No.1, the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are not maintainable before the respondent-authorities.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Maintainability of Section 23 proceedings — Registered Gift Deed dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure-B) executed by respondent No.1 (senior citizen, sister of petitioners and respondent No.4) in favour of the petitioners contained no recital or condition that the donees would take care of the donor — Following the declaration of law in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 IN SC 20 (paragraph 23 quoted) and Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, AIR ONLINE SC 1357, the Court held that as there is no recital in the Gift Deed requiring the petitioners to take care of respondent No.1, the proceedings under the Act are not maintainable before the respondent-authorities — Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 03.01.2022 in Sa.Hi.Na.C.R.27/2020-21 (Annexure-G) and the Deputy Commissioner's appellate order dated 13.05.2022 in CR-08/2021-22 (Annexure-H) were quashed — Writ petition allowed — Coram: E.S. Indiresh J.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 12731 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D.T. MURTHAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKUDA VILALGE, SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 552.

¶9

SRI. D.T. CHANDRAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKUDA VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK

¶10

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 552.

¶12

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA V.S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKUDA VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶19

TEH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶21

SRI. D.T. NATARAJ S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKUDA VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. S.K. KALLEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. D.J. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 13.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.HE.NA.KA.AA.C.R.08/2021-22, ON THE APPEAL BEING FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 23 OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT 2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 03.01.2022, PASSED BY THE R3 IN CASE NO.HE.NA.C.R.27/2020-21 ON THE PETITION BEING FILED BY THE R1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS U/S 23 OF THE

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT 2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. CR-08/2021-22, filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') as per Annexure- H and Order dated 03.01.2022, passed by respondent No.3 in Sa.Hi.Na.C.R.27/2020-21, (Annexure G) to the writ petition.

¶32

Heard Sri. Ravindra V.S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S.K.Kallegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. D.J.Nataraj, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

¶37

the petitioners that, respondent No.1 is the sister of petitioners and respondent No.4. The respondent No.1 herein had executed registered Gift Deed dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioners herein voluntarily and there is no condition as to taking care of respondent No.1 in the aforementioned Gift Deed and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the proceedings before the respondent-authorities are not maintainable under the Act. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶38

Per contra , Sri. S.K.Kallegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-Authorities and submitted that, the Gift Deed at Annexure-B has been executed by respondent No.1. Taking into consideration that the petitioners herein have to take care of the needs of respondent No.1 and accordingly sought to justify the impugned orders.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government

¶42

Advocate sought to support the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities.

¶43

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute as to the fact that respondent No.1 herein had executed the registered Gift Deed dated 12.10.2020 in favour of the petitioners herein as per Annexure-B to the writ petition.

¶44

The recitals in the Gift Deed would indicate that as respondent No.1 herein has given a promise to the petitioners and also for the well being of the petitioners, respondent No.1 has executed the registered Gift Deed in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶45

In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Dixit -vs- Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in 2025 IN SC 20 wherein paragraph 23 reads as under:-

¶46

"23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred that there is a break-down of peaceful relations inter se the

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation".

¶50

Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case and also in the case of

¶51

Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramti Devi and Another reported in

¶52

AIR ONLINE SC 1357 . I am of the view that as there is no recital in the Gift Deed at Annexure-B, that the petitioners herein have to take care of the respondent No.1, I am of the view that the proceedings under the Act itself is not maintainable before the respondent-authorities.

¶53

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:53126 WP No. 12731 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59