Sri K Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

SRI K GANGADHAR

¶6

S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶7

R/AT HANCHINPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶8

NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDINGS AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBU AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 009

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE KALAPPA AGED 80 YEARS R/AT 295/1, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, VIDYANANDA NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶17

NOW R/AT 139, KGHS LAYOUT NEAR RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 058

¶18

K SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED 80 YEARS R/AT 139 K G H S LAYOUT NEAR RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 058

¶19

SRI CHANDRA DEV S S/O K SHIVAKUMAR AGED 27 YEARS R/AT 139 K G H S LAYOUT NEAR RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 058

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.01.2022 PASSED IN MSC/CR/90/2021-22 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.12.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2022

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶29

passed in MSC/CR/90/2021-22 by the R2 Tribunal vide Annexure-E.

¶30

b. To pass such other a writ or order this Hon’ble Court as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case.

¶31

The petitioner is the son of late Kalappa and Smt. Lakshmidevamma, it is claimed that respondent No.3-Smt.Lakshmidevamma had executed a gift deed dated 09.09.2011 in favour of the petitioner in respect of property bearing Sy.No.199 to an extent of 4 acres 13 guntas situated at Hanchipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

¶32

It is also claimed that respondent No.3-the mother was residing with the petitioner and she is suffering from old age diseases, on account of which she was shifted to Bangalore for treatment and has been residing with her second son-Respondent No.4 namely Sri.K.Shivkumar.

¶33

In the month of June 2021, Respondent No.4 had lodged a complaint before the Nelamangala Rural Police Station alleging that the petitioner had

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶36

fraudulently obtained a gift deed from his mother, thereafter a petition came to be submitted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before Respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner for a declaration that the gift deed dated 09.09.2011 was void.

¶37

The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner on 27.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared through his advocate and filed his objections stating that he is willing to maintain and make payment of maintenance amounts for his mother. It is alleged that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the matter was posted for orders on 13.01.2022, when it was so pronounced cancelling the gift deed executed by the mother.

¶38

Subsequently, Respondent No.4- Sri.K.Shivkumar got executed a gift deed from Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.5-Sri.Chandra Dev.S, who is the son of Respondent No.4 and grandson of Respondent

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶40

No.3 and thereafter a police complaint was lodged. It is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has not considered the petitioner's objection, the gift deed was executed by Smt.Lakshmidevamma in the year 2011, the father of the petitioner and husband of Smt.Lakshmidevamma having expired in the year

¶41

It is the petitioner who has been maintaining the family, the entire proceedings have been initiated at the behest of Respondent No.4. There being one other property standing in the name of the mother in Vijayanagara, Bangalore she was earning a rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month and on that ground it was contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is bad in law and would require interference of the hands of this Court.

¶42

Sri.M.C.Jayakirthi., learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 submit that;

¶43

7.1. The petitioner has an alternative efficacy remedy in terms of appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶45

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and as such, the above petition is not maintainable. On that ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed.

¶46

7.2. On merits, he submits that the gift deed has

¶47

been got executed by the petitioner by exercising undue influence on Respondent No.3 and it is in that background that Respondent No.3 has challenged the gift deed executed by her before the Assistant Commissioner. He submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner being proper and correct does not require any interference.

¶48

Heard Sri. Naik Ramachandra Rama., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.C.Jayakirthi., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 and perused papers.

¶49

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court recently in the case of K Lokesh Vs The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶51

Citizens Appellate Tribunal and others date

¶52

20.12.2024 in WA No. 254 of 2024 has held that it is only a senior citizen or a parent who can file an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Thus, categorically holding that a person otherwise than a senior citizen or parent cannot file an appeal under Section 16. The petitioner being the son and not being either a senior citizen or a parent coming within the purview of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, would not be in a position or entitled to under law to file an appeal challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶53

Thus, the contention of Sri.M.C.Jayakirthi., learned counsel for Respondents No.3 to 5 that the petitioner has an alternative efficacy remedy is not sustainable.

¶54

It is trite law that whenever a person aggrieved by an order or an order passed by an Administrative Authority, Judicial Authority or a quasi-judicial

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶56

Authority as regards which no appeal is provided for, such person could approach the Constitutional Courts under Article 227 requesting the Constitutional Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

¶57

Thus, when the petitioner like in the present case has no appellate remedy against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable.

¶58

Coming to the merits of the matter, the submission of Sri. Naik Ramachandra Rama., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the gift deed had been executed in the year 2011 by the mother of her free Will and volition and there is no undue influence or coercion or the like which has been brought about by the petitioner/son. His submission categorically is that the entire proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the other son-Respondent No.4 who is also a witness to the aforesaid gift deed of 2011.

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶60

His categorical submission is that it is only in the year 2021 when Respondent No.3-mother shifted to Bangalore for treatment that a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner registered on 5.10.2021 and within one month thereafter on 4.11.2021 a gift deed came to be executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.5 who is the son of Respondent No.4 and the impugned order came to be passed on 13.01.2022.

¶61

Thus, as on the date on which a gift deed came to be

¶62

executed in favour of Respondent No.2 on 4.11.2021, the gift deed executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner on 09.09.2011 was still valid and subsisting. The declaration as regards the said gift deed being made on 13.01.2022 was subsequent to the gift deed executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.5 on 4.11.2021.

¶63

The circumstances and the facts as aforesaid to say the least are very suspicious. A gift deed having been executed in the year 2011 and continued to be in

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶66

force till the year 2021, Respondent No.4 being a witness to the said gift deed there is no particular covenant in the said gift deed of the petitioner being required to maintain the respondent No.3-Mother.

¶67

Be that as it may, on a complaint being filed, the petitioner has filed his objections and categorically indicated that he is ready to provide maintenance and take care of the maintenance of his mother which would indicate that the petitioner has not abandoned his mother, but he is willing to take care of her interests. The suspicious circumstances of the complaint having been filed after the mother being shifted for treatment to Bangalore and residing with Respondent No.4, I am of the considered opinion that the Assistant Commissioner has not taken these factors into account. The Assistant Commissioner could have directed the petitioner to make payment of sufficient amounts to take care of the maintenance of Respondent No.3.

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:2800 WP No. 1839 of 2022

¶70

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that any reasonable amount could be fixed which the petitioner would be willing to make payment of. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶73

ii. The order dated 13.01.2022 passed in MSC/CR/90/2021-22 by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-E is set aside. `

¶74

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶75

SR/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

¶76

*Page No. 11 is retyped and replaced and content of Page 12 is deleted vide Court order dated 10.03.2025

Sri K Gangadhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Gangadhar v. the 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

Sri T N Thimmarajachar Vs M/S Vishwabharathi House Building Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Smt Suma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kanameni Chkradhara Reddy S/O K Bala Reddy Vs Sri G Eshwarappa S/O Marulappa

Smt. Shruthi R Vs Avesthagen Limited

Sri Jitender Singh Kanwar Vs Avesthagen Limited

Gh Noor Jan Vs Secretary