Disposed¶47

Smt. Veena, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WP/19495/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi; cancellation of gift deed under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents' and Senior Citizens' Act; Assistant Commissioner and Maintenance Tribunal, Bangalore North Division; mother cannot represent major adult children (aged 30 and 32) who chose not to challenge the order; writ of certiorari refused; petition disposed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; Karnataka High Court, 2026, Suraj Govindaraj J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without quashing the impugned order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to claim any other right that she may have in an appropriate forum. ¶47

Smt. Veena, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19495 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VEENA, W/O SRI. ANJANAPPA B., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.482, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR VTU REGIONAL OFFICE, HEALTH LAYOUT, SRIGANDHAKAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

SMT. ANASOOYA A. W/O LATE K.V.ANNAYAPPA, NO.482, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR VTU REGIONAL OFFICE, HEALTH LAYOUT, SRIGANDHAKAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. HARSHA A. S/O SMT. VEENA AND SRI. ANIANAPPA B., NO.482, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR VTU REGIONAL OFFICE, HEALTH LAYOUT, SRIGANDHAKAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SRI. HARSHITHA A. S/O SMT. VEENA AND SRI ANJANAPPA B., NO.482, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR VTU REGIONAL OFFICE, HEALTH LAYOUT, SRIGANDHAKAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.VENUGOPALA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 (CP.15496/2026))

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION, BENGALURU, IN CASE NO. M.SC. NO.01/2024 AT ANNEXURE-A INSOFOR AS THE SAME AFFECTS THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER, BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO LAW AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶29

Sri. S.Venugopala, learned counsel has filed caveat

¶30

and accepts notice for respondent No.2. Notice to respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed, in view of the proposed order to be passed.

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner and Maintenance Tribunal, Bangalore North Division, Bengaluru, in Case No.M.S.C. No.01/2024 at Annexure-A insofar as the same affects the rights and interests of the petitioner, being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice;

¶33

b) Consequently, remand the matter to the learned Assistant Commissioner and Maintenance Tribunal, Bangalore North Division, Bengaluru, with a direction to afford the petitioner, who has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings, a full and effective opportunity to file her statement of objections, produce oral and documentary evidence, cross-examine witnesses, advance submissions and contest the proceedings on merits, before passing any fresh order in accordance with law;

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

c) Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶37

Respondent No.2 had filed proceeding under Sections 4 and 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents' and Senior Citizens' Act, against respondents No.3 and 4 seeking for cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 on the ground that it was under misrepresentation that the gift deed had been executed, when it had been indicated that what was being registered was a Will.

¶38

In the said proceedings, the petitioner who is the mother of respondents No.3 and 4 sought to implead as to which application came to be allowed. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 and directed the cancellation of gift deed. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has executed a Release Deed in favour of respondent No.2 and it is in that background that the gift deed had been executed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4. Therefore, respondent No.1 could not have cancelled the gift deed executed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4, without considering the submission made by the petitioner.

¶43

This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the petitioner inasmuch as what is cancelled is a gift deed executed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4, who apparently have not challenged the said cancellation and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner by virtue of being a mother of respondents No.3 and 4, who are stated to be 30 and 32 years respectively and major in age, cannot seek to espouse their cause in these proceedings when the affected parties are

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32850 WP No. 19495 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondents No.3 and 4 who have not challenged the said order. In this Court's considered opinion, the petitioner does not have the locus to challenge the same.

¶47

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to claim any other right that she may have in appropriate forum, the petition stands disposed .

¶48

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

MCR

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt. Veena, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Veena, v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Bangalore Baptist Church Trust Vs M/S Satchmo Holdings Ltd.

Piyush Kisanlal Jani Vs Office of Official Liquidator

The Cosmopolitan Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bejgam Ravindra Prasad Vs Passport Authority

The Manager Vs Thejas N

Indian Red Cross Society Vs Special Secretary to