Disposed¶40

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. Sri B G Venkate Gowda

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/16145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, Section 23; declaration that gift deed is void; Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner Ramanagara; gift to brothers; joint compromise petition; maintenance undertaking; voluntary settlement; withdrawal of Section 23 proceedings; disposal in terms of compromise; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Jayalakshmi v. B.G. Venkate Gowda; WP No. 16145 of 2025 (GM-RES); Karnataka High Court; decision dated 01-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition, whereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 undertook to provide maintenance and attend to the needs of the petitioner; pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly. ¶40

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs Sri B G Venkate Gowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent orders of the Tribunal (dated 26-07-2023) and the Appellate Tribunal / Deputy Commissioner (dated 07-06-2024) rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for a declaration that the gift deed executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 is void, were liable to be quashed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Having interacted with the petitioner and perused the terms of compromise, the Court was satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful, voluntary, and in the interest of the petitioner, and took the joint compromise petition on record.

¶38

Key takeaways

In view of the settlement recorded, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition, and all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Single Judge: Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.). A 73-year-old senior citizen challenged concurrent orders rejecting her application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking a declaration that a gift deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (her brothers) was void — namely, the Assistant Commissioner's (Tribunal's) order dated 26-07-2023 in Case No. HIREYA NA.R.KA.S/19/2022-23 and the Appellate Tribunal / Deputy Commissioner's confirming order dated 07-06-2024 in Case No. H.NA.PA.PO APPEAL/02/2023-24. Before the High Court, a joint compromise petition was filed under which respondent Nos.1 and 2 undertook to provide maintenance and attend to the petitioner's needs. The petitioner, present in Court and identified by counsel, stated the compromise was entered voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence, and that she did not wish to prosecute the Section 23 proceedings. The Court, being satisfied that the settlement was lawful, voluntary and in the petitioner's interest, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise petition, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly. No findings were rendered on the merits of the Section 23 claim or the validity of the gift deed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:17758 WP No. 16145 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16145 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE C. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO. 39, NEW NO. 131 12TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 050.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. B.G. VENKATE GOWDA S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶16

SRI. B.G. RAMESH S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶17

BOTH RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 R/AT BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE AND POST, KYALANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:17758 WP No. 16145 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PRAKASH D.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXUREA ORDER DATED 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM REVENUE, SUBDIVISION, TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS IN CASE NO. HIREYA NA.R.KA.S/19/2022-23 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ORDER DATED 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 IN CASE NO H.NA.PA.PO APPEAL/02/2023-24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA CONFIRMING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:17758 WP No. 16145 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The captioned writ petition is instituted by the petitioner, a senior citizen, calling in question the legality and correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking a declaration that the gift deed executed in favour of the respondents is void, came to be rejected.

¶33

When the matter was taken up for consideration, a joint compromise petition duly signed by the parties is placed on record. In terms of the said compromise, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the brothers of the petitioner, have agreed to amicably resolve the dispute and have undertaken to provide maintenance and attend to the needs of the petitioner herein.

¶34

Smt. Jayalakshmi, the petitioner, who is present before this Court, is identified by her learned counsel. Upon a specific query made by this Court, she unequivocally states that she has voluntarily entered into the compromise without any

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17758 WP No. 16145 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

coercion or undue influence. She further submits that in view of the undertaking given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide for her maintenance and basic amenities, she does not wish to prosecute the proceedings initiated under Section 23 of the Act and seeks permission to withdraw the same.

¶38

This Court, having interacted with the petitioner and upon perusal of the terms of compromise, is satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful, voluntary, and in the interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, the joint compromise petition is taken on record.

¶39

In view of the settlement recorded hereinabove, the

¶40

writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶42

HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 60

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. Sri B G Venkate Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. Sri B G Venkate Gowda

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

Mr. Awab Adil Ahmed Mohamed @ Awab Vs Union of India

Chikmagalore District High School Vs Under Secretary to the Government- 3

Mr. Abdul Khader Vs the State of Karnataka

Paras Aneja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Thippaiah H @ Thipeswamy