Allowed

Smt D R Radha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2026WP/25334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen sought cancellation of a gift deed via the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging fraud. The High Court held that fraud-based allegations without a condition of maintenance fall outside Section 23 of the 2007 Act and are for a civil court, quashing the tribunal and appellate orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 and 22.04.2022 quashed; respondent No.4 left free to seek remedies before the competent civil court.

Smt D R Radha Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25334 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT D R RADHA W/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶11

SRI PUTTASWAMY H M S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.442, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, ATTURU LAYOUT, ATTURU POST, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

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

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

SMT. VINODAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.270, ATTURU LAYOUT YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560064

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. RAMESH H.E., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R2/ THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN NO. MAG(4)/SC/CR/3/2022-23, BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H 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 M.G.S. KAMAL

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Respondent No.4 being sister of petitioner No.1 had executed a deed of Gift dated 18.02.2009 conveying subject property in her favour and thereafter initiated the proceedings under the Provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.MSC/CR No.26/2020-21 alleging that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.442 formed in Sy.No.33 of Atturu Village, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru, having acquired the same through her husband which was allotted to him on the occasion of 25^th Independence day Anniversary. That her husband passed away. Thereafter taking advantage of her situation, petitioner No.1 herein started to live with the respondent No.4 in the schedule property. Thereafter started harassing her, insisting her to sell the schedule property. That in year 2000 respondent No.4 contacted second marriage with one Subramanya Shastry, which was objected to by petitioner No.1 herein. That with an intention of cheating the respondent No.4 one way or the other petitioner No.1 herein obtained deed of gift dated 18.02.2009 in respect of schedule property in a fraudulent manner. It is

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

further alleged petitioner was not aware of the said transaction. That when she visited the subject property recently then only she came to know petitioner had obtained said deed of gift by fraudulent means. That she had filed a police complaint before the jurisdictional police on 20.08.2019 but they refused to take the complaint as it is a matter of civil nature. Alleging as above, she filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶35

2. In response petitioner No.1 herein filed statement of objections contending that the respondent No.4 was intending to sell the schedule property. Accordingly they had entered into

¶36

an agreement agreeing to purchase the property for a total consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. A Power of Attorney dated 26.10.1999 was also executed by the respondent No.4 after receiving the entire sale consideration. Thereafter the Deed of Gift was executed pursuant to which khata has been transferred in the name of the petitioner No.1. Allegation of fraud has been denied. The Assistant Commissioner however accepted the contention of the respondent No.4 of petitioner No.1 herein having obtained the deed of gift in a fraudulent manner and proceeded to cancel the deed of gift by the impugned order. The said order is dated 22.04.2022 produced

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

at Annexure-G. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner-1 who has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved the present petition.

¶41

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the transaction under no circumstances would fall within the provisions of Act, 2007. That part deed of gift do not contain the clauses as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act, 2007. Further submits the very premise on which the respondent No.4 has initiated the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner is alleged fraud played and exerted by the petitioner No.1 on respondent No.4. Such a complex and disputed question cannot be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence seeks for allowing the petition.

¶42

4. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that admittedly petitioner No.1 is the sister of respondent No.4 and there is also no dispute to the fact that deed of gift indeed was executed. Respondent No.4 was in a pitiable condition having lost her husband and she trusted and believed the petitioner No.1 that she would

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

maintain her. It is under these circumstances deed of gift was executed which later turned out to be a false promise by which the petitioner No.1 has refused to provide any amenities and maintenance to the respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 today is on streets having conveyed the property in favour of petitioner No.1 which factor has been taken note of by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶47

5. Heard and perused the records.

¶48

6. By the very extract of the averments made by the respondent No.4 in her petition before the Assistant Commissioner as noted above, it is a clear case of she having been allegedly cheated and defrauded by petitioner No.1 who purportedly obtained deed of gift dated 18.02.2009 without her knowledge. It is her specific case that she learnt about the execution of deed of gift dated 18.02.2009 just before filing of the petition before the Assistant Commissioner under Act, 2007 in the year 2021.

¶49

7. The reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner is that the deed of gift was

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

obtained by the petitioner No.1 fraudulently. As rightly pointed

¶54

by the learned counsel for petitioner such a plea and a case involving complex question of fact with the allegations of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation cannot be gone into by the Assistant Commissioner, particularly under the provisions of the Act, 2007. It is only a Court of competent civil jurisdiction which can go into the allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc.

¶55

8. Section 23 of the Act, 2007 reads as under:

¶56

"23. T ransfer of property to be void in certain circumstances

¶57

1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option ofthe transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

¶58

2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part , thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

¶59

3. If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision contemplates donor

¶64

being aware of execution of a deed of gift with a condition that the donee would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs and the donee must have failed and refused to provide such amenities. Least the donor as that of the respondent No.4 should plead is that she had executed the deed of gift with the conditions and assurance and of the hope that she would be maintained and looked after by the donee. None of these elements are present in the instant case. Except plain allegation of she having been defrauded years ago which she discovered after about 12 years. In other words respondent No.4 herein was not even aware of she having executed deed of gift dated 18.02.2009 in favour of the petitioner till the year 2021.

¶65

10. The Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA

¶66

Vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER reported in ( 2024) 14 SCC

¶67

225 at paragraphs 14 and 15 held as under:

¶68

"14. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

¶69

(a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic

¶70

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and

¶73

(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

¶74

If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

¶75

15. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal."

¶76

11. In the circumstances, the reasoning assigned by the

¶77

Assistant Commissioner, affirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, for cancellation of the said deed of gift namely, petitioner allegedly obtaining the deed of gift by means of fraud would not fall within the parameters of Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

¶78

Petition accordingly allowed . Impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 and 22.04.2022 passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively are quashed.

¶79

It is made clear notwithstanding allowing of the petition, it is open for the respondent No.4 to seek such remedy as may

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:30441 WP No. 25334 of 2022

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

be available and permissible under law before the competent

¶84

Court, since she has alleged fraud being played on her by the

¶85

petitioner No.1 in obtaining the document.

¶86

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶87

SBN

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Smt D R Radha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D R Radha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B N Satish Vs State of Karnataka

Kasipu LLP Vs Teh State of Karnataka

M/S Madhu Steel Corporation Vs M/S Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. A.S. Ponnanna Vs the Election Commission of India

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs Karnataka Information Commission