Smt Saraswathi Sastry Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21115 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARASWATHI SASTRY, W/O. M. L. NAGABHUSHAN SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A:NO.309, SARASWATHI NILAYA, II BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN, THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SRI M. N. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O M. L. NAGABHUSHAN SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. RANJANI, W/O M. N. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶20

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.309, II FLOOR 2^ND BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶21

SRI M. L. SURESH BABU, S/O LATE M. R. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.477, 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN MAG(4)/SC/CR/14/2022-23, DTD 14.06.2023 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2023, passed by first respondent, Deputy Commissioner, by which the respondent No.1 while allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.5, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ('for short the Act'), has set aside the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2 herein in Case No.MSC/CR/18/2021-2022 and has consequently rejected the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Act, 2007.

¶32

The above petition under Section 4, 5 and 23 of the Act, 2007 was filed by the petitioner herein against respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 seeking following reliefs:

¶33

(a) Declare that the Gift Deed dated 07.09.2017 executed by Petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 1 & 2 in respect of Petition schedule property registered as Document No. JGN-1-039142017-18, Book 1, CD No. JGND507 registered at Sub-Registrar, Basavangudi (Jigani), Bannerghatta, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District as null and void and liable to be cancelled and consequently

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

restore the petition schedule property in favour of the Petitioner, and

¶38

(b) Restrain the Respondents permanently from alienating the petition schedule property or encumbering the same whatsoever; and

¶39

(c) Evict the Respondents from the Petition schedule property and restore the possession of the Petition schedule property to the Petitioner; and

¶40

(d) Direct Respondent No. 1 - Sri. M.N. Chandrashekar to pay maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/p.m. (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) from the date of filing the Petition; and

¶41

(e) Direct the Station House officer of Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru to give protection to the Petitioner; and

¶42

(f) Restrain the Respondents from collecting any rent from tenants of Petition schedule property, and

¶43

(g) Direct the Respondents to return all original documents pertaining to petition schedule property to the Petitioner, and

¶44

(h) Declare that the sale deed dated 12.12.2018 executed between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 in respect of Petition schedule property, registered as Document No. BSG-1-06465-2018-19, Book 1, CD No. BSGD339 registered at SubRegistrar, Basavangudi, Bengaluru as null and void

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and consequently restore the petition schedule property in favour of the Petitioner; and

¶49

(i) Restrain the Respondents from committing any act of violence i.e., by using abusive language either against the Petitioner or against the husband of the Petitioner and further restrain them assaulting the Petitioner physically or mentally; and

¶50

(j) Book Respondents for causing violence meted out by them on Petitioner; and

¶51

(k) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit or the protection of the life and property of the Petitioner and the welfare of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶52

Respondent No.2 by order dated 09.06.2022

¶53

allowed the said petition granting reliefs as sought for. As against the said order, Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Act before respondent No.1, which by the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 has been passed.

¶54

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 being the purchaser has no locus-standi to

¶55

file the appeal under Section 16 of the Act, as the same does not vest any right in favour of any person other than the

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:7174 WP No. 21115 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

senior citizen. He relies upon the judgment of Division Bench

¶60

of this Court in the case of Sri. K.Lokesh V/s. The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senor Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special Deputy Commissioner-1 and others reported in WA.No.254/2024 and submits that the respondent No.1 has erred in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent No.5-purchaser.

¶61

Hence, he submits that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction.

¶62

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of

¶63

the matter. However, she further submits that liberty be reserved to respondent No.5 to avail such remedy as would be permissible under law.

¶64

In the light of the aforesaid position of law regarding maintainability and entertainability of the appeal under Section 16 of the Act, which is admittedly filed by

¶65