Sri. Manjesh. B. K. Vs State of Karnataka

(BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (2, 4, 5); SRI. RAVI C.S, ADVOCATE FOR R3(6); SRI. MAHESH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (2 TO 5))

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.MSC/CR/17/2017-18 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶32

26.03.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.MSC/CR/17/2017-18 by which, he invalidated a Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioners by the respondent No.3 (now deceased).

¶33

The respondent No.3 is the grand father of the petitioners, who was the owner of a residential property. He executed a Gift Deed dated 23.01.2016 in favour of the petitioners herein. Long after the Gift Deed was executed, the respondent No.3 submitted a petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'Act, 2007') on 18.08.2017 before the respondent No.2 for cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 23.01.2016. The respondent No.2 in terms of the impugned order allowed the petition and invalidated the Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order are before this Court, in this writ petition.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the Gift Deed was executed after the Act of 2007 came into force, there was no corresponding obligation mentioned in the Gift Deed that the petitioners had to take care of the respondent No.3 or maintain him. He contends that the father of the petitioners, who is the son of the respondent No.3 was duty bound to maintain the respondent No.3. Therefore, he contends that the respondent No.2 did not get jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent No.3.

¶37

Besides this, he contends that the respondent No.3 did not mention anything in the petition under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 as to why the Gift Deed dated 23.01.2016 had to be invalidated. He contends that the respondent No.3 has now expired and the petition filed by him before the respondent No.2 as well as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 has become unenforceable as the right to seek for reliefs under the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Act, 2007 was personal in nature and it did not enure to the benefit of legal heirs of the respondent No.3.

¶41

The petition is opposed by the legal representatives of respondent No.3 namely, legal representatives No.2, 3, 4 and 5, who contend that the respondent No.3 had 7 children and that the property gifted in favour of petitioners were the self acquired property of respondent No.3. They contend that it was respondent No.3, who personally ensured that the petitioner's family was provided with food, shelter and other necessities of life. They contend that the wife of respondent No.3 passed away on 30.12.2015 and within a month thereafter, the petitioners got the impugned Gift Deed executed. They claim that the Gift Deed was drafted and executed in English language which was not known to respondent No.3. They claimed that the Gift Deed was conditional namely, that the petitioners were required to take care of respondent No.3 for the remaining period of his life. They claimed that based on this assurance, the

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

respondent No.3 reposed complete trust in the petitioners,

¶45

but they did not do anything to take care of respondent No.3. They claimed that the execution of Gift Deed was concealed from the other members of the family including the other children of the respondent No.3. They claimed that after the Gift Deed was obtained, the petitioners began neglecting and ill treating respondent No.3. They claimed that Gift Deed executed in favour of petitioners was liable to be invalidated as the petitioners did not take care of needs and necessities of respondent No.3.

¶46

The learned counsel for LRs of respondent No.3 contended that even if a condition that the petitioners had to meet the needs and maintain respondent No.3 is not incorporated in the Gift Deed, a duty is cast upon petitioners to do so. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Dixit v/s Sunil Sharan Dixit and Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 10927/2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.720 of 2023.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

On considering the submission of learned

¶51

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for legal representatives of respondent No.3, a perusal of the provisions of the Act 2007, makes it more than apparent that the provisions in the Act 2007, are designed to ensure

¶52

the well being of parents and senior citizens. After commencement of the Act, parents or senior citizens execute any document in respect of their property and the beneficiary agrees to take care of them and during their lifetime the beneficiary defends then such parent or senior citizen may apply under the Act, 2007 to invalidate such a document. This is done solely as a deterrent to ensure that the parent or the person executing such a document is taken care.

¶53

Therefore, it can be clearly held that the benefits conferred on the senior citizens/parents are personal to them and such right cannot be inherited by the legal representatives of parents/senior citizens. Now that the respondent No.3 has expired, the LRs of the

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

respondent No.3 cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by respondent No.2 to invalidate the Gift Deed executed in favor of the petitioners. Besides this, a perusal of the Gift Deed shows that there was no corresponding duty cast upon the petitioners to take care of respondent No.3, as the son of respondent No.3 was still alive and during the life time of son of respondent No.3, the petitioners were not expected in law to take care and maintain respondent No.3. This apart, a perusal of the petition filed by respondent No.3 under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 shows that there was no reason mentioned by the respondent No.3 in the petition for invalidating the Gift Deed dated 23.01.2016.

¶57

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 was without any basis, but on the assumption that the petitioners did not take care or meet the needs and necessities of respondent No.3. Consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 has no legs to stand and in view of death of

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35594 WP No. 17660 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

respondent No.3, the order passed by respondent No.2 has become unenforceable.

¶61

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The

¶62

impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is quashed. However, it is open for the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 to challenge the Gift Deed on any other ground that may be available to them, before the appropriate Civil Court, in accordance with law.

¶63

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶64

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Sri. Manjesh. B. K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjesh. B. K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Roopa Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Ballekere Milk Producers Vs the State of Karnataka

H K Renukaprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Singh Vs Mrs Tilak B Alias Thilaka S Rai

Smt Veena Vs State of Karnataka

C Lakshmisha Vs State of Karnataka