Smt Nagaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN CASE NO. SCA SR NO.16/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, produced at Annexure– A.

¶32

The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that, Respondent No.3 claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 31, of Lakkondahalli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural Ditrict. Respondent No.3 executed a registered Gift Deed dated 16.04.2015 in favour of his daughter, Maligamma to an extent of 15^3/4 , and pursuant to the said Gift Deed, the revenue records have been mutated in her name. It is further stated that Respondent No.3, along with his daughters, executed a registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 in respect of

¶33

a portion of land in Sy. No.31/1 in favour of Narayanachari (husband of Petitioner No.1 and father

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

of Petitioner No.2), as per Annexure–E to the writ

¶37

petition. 2.

¶38

In the meanwhile, Respondent No.3

¶39

approached Respondent No.2 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 'Act). By impugned order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure–A), Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner nullified the registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure–E). Being aggrieved the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶40

I have heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. H.K. Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for

¶45

the petitioners, contended that Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to nullify the registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure–E) executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of late Narayanachari, as the said sale was for valuable consideration. He therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶46

Per contra, Sri H.K. Basavaraj, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure–A and contended that the Sale Deed was executed fraudulently, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶47

Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondentState sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Having considered the submissions of the

¶51

parties, and upon careful examination of Section 23 of the Act, it is evident that the Sale Deed being nullified by Respondent No.2 (Annexure–E) was a sale for valuable consideration. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves acceptance. Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to nullify a registered Sale Deed executed for valuable consideration. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are not applicable to the present case.

¶52

In the result, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexure–A, is hereby set aside.

¶53

Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

¶54

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶55

SB:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Nagaveni v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagaveni 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Exora Business Parks Ltd., Vs the Regional Commissioner

Smt. Mariyam Bi Vs the General Manager

Sri R Vijaychandra Vs Smt E v Ashalatha

M/S. Bharath Rice Industries Vs State Bank of India

Prakash Chand Kothari, Vs the Sub Registrar

S K Sanil Vs K Prakash Shenoy