Sri. Mariswamy Shetty Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SRI. MARISWAMY SHETTY S/O LATE SIDDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS UPPARA BEEDI EKKADAHALLI VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST PIN-571440.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SHARATH J M.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST CHAMARAJANAGARA -571313.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52031 WP No. 24276 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT SIDDAMMA

¶21

D/O SIDDASHETTY @ SIDDA

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

UPPARA BEEDI

EKKADAHALLI VILLAGE

PALYA HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST PIN-571440.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R1;

¶28

SRI. M.K. GIRISH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R1/ASST. COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.MAGCR.46/2022-23 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52031 WP No. 24276 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner, who is a septuagenarian, is aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 09.11.2022 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, ' the Act' ]. The first respondent, accepting the application by the second respondent [the petitioner's sister], who is also a senior citizen, has cancelled the gift deed dated 25.07.2022 executed by her in favour of the petitioner for the land measuring 2 acres 33 cents in Survey No. 441 of Ekkadahalli Village, Palya Hobli,Kollegala [ the subject property ].

¶36

This Court, by the interim order dated 14.12.2022, has stayed the operation of the first respondent's order taking on record the undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that the second respondent would be permitted to live in the house that she resides and she would be provided with due assistance given her age and circumstances.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52031 WP No. 24276 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri M.K. Girish, the learned counsel for

¶41

the second respondent, while contending that the petitioner has neglected the second respondent constraining her to reside at different places in the same village, submits that the second respondent has instituted suit in OS No. 193 of 2023 with the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, for declaration that the gift deed dated 25.07.2022 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel elaborates that the suit is instituted lest it be argued against the cancellation asserting that the second respondent has not even averred that she has executed the gift deed on the condition that there was an assurance by the petitioner to provide for her needs and requirements.

¶42

This Court has considered these circumstances, and with the second respondent challenging the gift deed in a suit on a larger canvas, the final decision on whether the gift deed dated

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:52031 WP No. 24276 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

25.07.2022 is really vitiated must be examined in such suit for complete adjudication and the first respondent's impugned order cannot be the final word. This Court is also of the view that the second respondent, notwithstanding the outcome in the present proceedings, must be at liberty to avail remedies under the Act for maintenance and the petitioner must be at liberty to defend such proceedings without being prejudiced by any observation in the impugned order. In the light of the afore the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is disposed of dissolving the first respondent's order dated 09.11.2022 under Section 23 of the Act, but without prejudice to the second respondent to prosecute the suit in OS No. 193 of 2023 and also to file an application for

¶49