Allowed

Smt. Jyothi Basavaraj Mundalamane v. Sri. Kashinath

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2026WP/1923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Maintenance Tribunal order cancelling a father's gift deed to his daughter under the Senior Citizens Act. The High Court held that an application under Section 5 for maintenance could not sustain cancellation of the deed, as no express or implied maintenance condition was pleaded or present in the deed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2021 cancelling the gift deed quashed; civil suit to proceed on merits; petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/month maintenance to respondent/father from date of order.

Smt. Jyothi Basavaraj Mundalamane Vs Sri. Kashinath — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1923 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JYOTHI BASAVARAJ MUNDALAMANE W/O BASAVARAJ AGED 48 YEARS R/O KABBUR VILLAGE HAVERI TQ AND DIST - 581 110

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANTOSH R. NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. KASHINATH

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O REVANASIDDAPAP AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O KURKI VILLGE DAVANAGERE TQ AND DISTRICT - 577 001

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ PRESIDING OFFICER TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN AND PARENTS DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001

¶16

MANJUNATH S/O KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/O KURKI VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK DISTRICT - 577 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2 SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF NO.SAM.HI.NA.C.R.NO.25/2020-21. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVANAGERE DTD 27.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-G.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davangere Sub Division, Davangere, in Case No.SAM.HI.NA.CR.No.25/2020-21 filed by

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), in which the Assistant Commissioner has by allowing the said petition cancelled the Deed of Gift dated 18.06.2019 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner herein, conveying an extent of one acre of land in Survey No.107/2 and 23 guntas of land in Survey No.157/3 of Kurki Village, Davangere Taluk and District.

¶32

The petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to have obtained the aforesaid property in terms of deed of gift dated 18.06.2019 executed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 herein has subsequently filed a petition under the provisions of Section-5 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner herein had fraudulently obtained a deed of gift by fabricating the document and thus the property belongs to the petitioner.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The objection statement to the said petition was

¶37

filed, denying the allegation of fraud and fabrication as alleged. Written arguments were filed.

¶38

On consideration of the pleading, the

¶39

respondent / Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order as noted above.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities are cryptic and are not in consonance either with the facts or with the provisions of law. He submits that there is no discussion of any nature whatsoever in the respondent / Assistant Commissioner coming to the conclusion of he being justified in granting the order as sought for. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Deed Of Gift does not contain any condition as contemplated under Section-23 of the Act.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Similarly, there is no pleading either with regard to violation of any such condition. In the absence of the same, he submits that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order cancelling the Deed of Gift.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently submits that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER

¶46

reported in ( 2024) 14 SCC 225, submits that even if there is no express condition in the deed the implied conditions has to be inferred from the pleading of the parties. He also further relies on another judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.SHOBHA Vs. DR. ANIL P

¶47

KUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 (1) Kar LJ.

¶48

606 , to justify his contention that even if there is no specific / express condition in the deed of gift, pleading would be sufficient. He submits that the said petition has to be read holistically, along with the objection statement

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

filed by the petitioner who has admitted to have obtained

¶52

the deed of gift and she has also stated that she is ready and willing to take care of her father. He submits that these aspects have to be read conjointly to come to the conclusion that if there is any violation of condition express or implicit under Section–23 of the Act. Therefore, he submits that grounds are made out for interference at the hands of this Court.

¶53

He alternatively submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference, the petitioner be atleast directed to pay the maintenance to the respondent, which would serve the purpose inasmuch as the respondent who is presently aged beyond 80 years and he is not been taken care by anyone including the petitioner.

¶54

Heard. Perused the records.

¶55

At the outset, it is to be noted that the petition

¶56

that was filed before the Assistant Commissioner is under

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Section–5 of the Act’2007, which provides for an application to be filed seeking maintenance. The application is not, admittedly, one under Section–23 of the Act. Even if the said application was one to be under

¶61

Section–23 of the Act, the essential requirement of there being an express or an implied condition in the gift deed in the form of an undertaking by the petitioner / Donee of providing maintenance, amenities is absent in the instant case.

¶62

Also necessary to note that the premise, on which the petition before the Assistant Commissioner is filed, is on the allegations of the petitioner herein obtaining the deed of gift by fraudulent means and by fabricating the documents without the knowledge of the respondent / father. Clearly, the petition as brought forth before the Assistant Commissioner under Section–5 of the

¶63

Act, bereft of any pleading of there being implicit understanding between the petitioner and respondent

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

No.1 of maintenance, the same could not have been

¶68

entertained.

¶69

At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent No.1 has also initiated proceedings in O.S.No.86/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge JMFC, Davangere seeking cancellation of the deed of gift and the same is pending consideration.

¶70

Without expressing any view on the merits or otherwise of allegation of the fraud, fabrication, allegedly committed by the petitioner in obtaining the deed of gift, and in the light of the aforesaid legal and the factual aspects of the matter involved in the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Having said that, as sought for by the respondent as an alternate means the petitioner also requires to be put on terms. Accordingly, the following:

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:7560 WP No. 1923 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. Petition is allowed .

¶76

ii. Order impugned dated 27.10.2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davangere Sub Division, Davangere, in Case No.SAM.HI.NA.CR.No.25 /2020-21 filed by respondent No.1 is quashed.

¶77

iii. Since the respondent/father is stated to have initiated proceedings in O.S.No.86/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge JMFC, Davangere, the same shall proceed notwithstanding the order of the Assistant Commissioner having been quashed, without being influenced by the said order, purely based on the merits.

¶78

iv. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the matter shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand Only), as maintenance to the respondent / father from the date of this order.

¶79