Sri C S Umesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.08.2021 BEARING NO.PAAPOSAM

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HAAGU HIRIYA NAA.RA.KAA.SUM:59/20-21, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.Paaposm Haagu Hiriya Naa.Ra.Kaa.Sum:59/20-21 dated 18.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 2007’ for short).

¶26

The facts put in a nutshell are that the respondent No.2 is the mother of the petitioner and she was residing with him. The respondent No.2 had inherited a property bearing survey No.3/5 of Kacchenahalli Village, Cheluru Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, measuring 22 guntas and survey No.58/1 of Kacchenahalli Village, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas. She claims that the petitioner herein had, without her notice and knowledge, obtained a release deed dated 11.03.2019, by which she had released her rights in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid land. The respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner had no right in the land and therefore, the release

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

deed executed in his favour was fraudulent and that she had no intention to execute such a document. The respondent No.1 entertained the dispute and passed the impugned order annulling the release deed dated 12.03.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondent No.2 had executed a release deed dated 11.03.2019, there was no mention in the release deed that the petitioner had to maintain the respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.1 did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the respondent No.2. In support of this contention, they relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and

¶31

Another - (2022) SCC Online SC 1684 . He contends that the respondent No.2 could not raise contentions such as the fraudulent execution of the release deed dated 11.03.2019 before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 is not authorized in law to adjudicate upon the legitimacy or otherwise of the release deed dated 11.03.2019. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

is without the authority of law and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.317/2021 for interim injunction in respect of the aforesaid lands based on the release deed executed by respondent No.2. He contends that the impugned order is likely to affect the interests of the petitioner in O.S.No.317/2021. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order be set aside.

¶36

(i) The learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶37

contended that the petitioner is the only son of respondent No.2 and even if there is no mention of about the obligation of the petitioner to maintain the respondent No.2, it is inherent that the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent No.2 and the said condition has to be read into the release deed. In this regard he relied upon the judgment in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others - (2025) 2 SCC 787 . He further contends that the respondent No.2 was living in a house that was constructed on survey No.3/5, which was inherited by her from her parents and that the petitioner had raised a loan without her notice and knowledge and had demolished and constructed a building thereon and had thrown her out of the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

house. He therefore contends that respondent No.2 is entitled to reclaim her property and therefore, she approached respondent No.1. He contends that the petitioner has not taken care of the respondent No.2 and hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper.

¶41

(ii) The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the respondent No.1 had exercised jurisdiction in order to protect the interest of the respondent No.2, which is just and proper and therefore no interference is warranted.

¶42

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶43

A perusal of the release deed dated 11.03.2019, though bears a reference that the petitioner was the one who was taking care of the respondent No.2, there is no mention that the release deed was executed by the respondent No.2 in consideration of the petitioner agreeing to maintain the respondent No.2. Nonetheless, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the Hon'ble Apex

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Court has considered this question in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others and has held that the obligation to maintain a parent has to be read into any document executed in favour of a child. Therefore, even if there is no mention in the release deed above, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain the respondent No.2, the same has to be read into it.

¶48

The respondent No.2 had claimed before the respondent No.1 that the petitioner had represented to her that he intended to raise a loan by mortgaging the properties and had obtained signatures on a document, which was supposed to be a mortgage deed, but she later came to know that it was a release deed. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was not before the respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner was under an obligation to maintain her but did not do so and that therefore the release deed executed in favour of the petitioner has to be annulled. On the contrary, she was before the respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the release deed. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question whether the release deed was executed fraudulently or legitimately, could not have been adjudicated upon by the

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

respondent No.1, as this was the domain of the civil Court and it was the civil Court alone, which had to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, on this short ground alone, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶53

Since it is stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that a suit in O.S.No.317/2021 is filed by the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respect of the aforesaid properties, it is open for respondent No.2 to work out her remedy in the said suit in accordance with law.

¶54

Before parting, it is relevant to note that this Court had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- every month as maintenance to the respondent No.2. The petitioner being the son and who has presently inherited the property of the respondent No.2 under the release deed dated 11.03.2019, is bound to maintain the respondent No.2 till her lifetime.

¶55

In that view of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to henceforth pay maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month payable by 1^st of every month to the respondent No.2.

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:35587 WP No. 16843 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off on the following terms:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. The petition is allowed .

¶62

ii. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 order bearing No.Paaposm Haagu Hiriya Naa.Ra.Kaa.Sum:59/20-21 dated 18.08.2021 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is at liberty to work out her remedy in respect of the released deed dated 11.03.2019 in O.S.No.317/2021 filed by the petitioner or in an independent suit.

¶63

iii. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/per month to the respondent No.2 from the date of this order during her lifetime and the same shall be paid by the 1^st of every month without fail. In case if the petitioner fails to do so, the maintenance payable by him shall be treated as a charge on the property bearing survey No.3/5 and 58/1 of Kacchenahalli Village.

¶64