Disposed¶6

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/26237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007; Sections 7, 8 r/w 23; cancellation of deed of gift dated 12.04.2013; Deputy Commissioner Ramanagara reverses Assistant Commissioner; writ petition disposed of without merits; appeal without authority (W.A. No. 254/2024) not decided; petitioner deceased, transposition of heirs; registered will dated 30.03.2024; O.S. No. 501 of 2024 pending; Articles 226/227; Karnataka HC; M.G.S. Kamal, J.; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the parties to urge and contest all questions in the pending suit in O.S. No. 501 of 2024, with the Trial Court directed to adjudicate and dispose of the suit without being influenced by the orders subject matter of this petition; pending IAs, if any, disposed of. ¶6

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner (setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.12.2022 which cancelled the deed of gift dated 12.04.2013) should be quashed and the Assistant Commissioner's decision dated 12.12.2022 upheld. +1 more

¶cause-title

Court's answer

Without going into the merits or otherwise of the contentions of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the parties to urge and contest on all the questions in the pending suit in O.S. No. 501/2024; the Trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the suit without being influenced by the orders that were the subject matter of this petition.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The court expressly declined to enter into the merits or otherwise of the contentions of the parties; consequently the contention that respondent No.3's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was without authority was not decided and remains open to be urged in the pending suit.

¶6

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications (IAs), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.G.S. Kamal, J.) disposed of, without adjudication of merits, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 26.10.2023 (Case No. MIS/PETITION/SENIOR CITIZEN/02/2022-23) reversing the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.12.2022 cancelling a deed of gift dated 12.04.2013 sought under Sections 7 and 8 r/w Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner died on 13.04.2024 leaving her daughters (respondents 3-5) on record; she had executed a registered will dated 30.03.2024 and respondent No.5 had sued for her share in O.S. No. 501 of 2024. The contention, supported by a Division Bench order in W.A. No. 254/2024, that respondent No.3's statutory appeal lacked authority was left undecided. Liberty was reserved to all parties to litigate every question in the pending suit, the Trial Court to adjudicate uninfluenced by the impugned orders; pending IAs stood disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34597 WP No. 26237 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26237 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. H.L. POORNACHANDRA W/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO 126/1, OPP BASAVANNA TEMPLE, WARD NO 21, ARALEPETE, MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶14

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

¶15

SMT. SHURTHI D/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, W/O GIRISH B.A. R/A NO. 2900, WARD NO 9, BEHIND BASAVANNA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, MAGADI TOWN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34597 WP No. 26237 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MAGADI TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶19

SMT. SWAPNA D/O LATE KARIBASAPPA W/O RENUKAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 66, RENUKA NILAYA 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST STAGE AGB LAYOUT, MAHALAKSMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086.

¶20

SMT. JYOTHI D/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, W/O YOGENDARA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 35, MOKSHA, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, AMBANAGAR, CHIKKABANNAVAR, BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R3; SRI. V.R. DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 26.10.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. MIS/PETITION/SENIOR CITIZEN/02/2022-23 VIDE ANNX-G AND TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE R-2 DTD 12.12.2022 IN CASE N O. SENIOR CITIZEN MSC/CR 11/202223 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:34597 WP No. 26237 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶28

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This writ petition was filed by one Smt.H.L.Poornachandra aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner by which the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner had set aside the Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

2. The petitioner herein had invoked provisions of Section 7 and 8 r/w Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against respondent No.3 herein seeking cancellation of deed of gift dated 12.04.2013. The Assistant Commissioner had allowed the said application and cancelled the gift deed. Upon the appeal filed by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the said order. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶33

3. It is submitted that the petitioner

¶34

Smt.H.L.Poornachandra passed away on 13.04.2024. A memo

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34597 WP No. 26237 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

dated 04.07.2024 is filed stating that the legal representative of the petitioner being her children, namely the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 being her daughters are already on record and a request is made to transpose respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as the petitioners. It is also submitted that subsequent to order of the Assistant Commissioner, deceased petitioner had executed a registered will dated 30.03.2024. It is also submitted Respondent No.5 herein has already initiated a suit in OS No.501 of 2024 seeking her share in the subject property based on the registered will.

¶38

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though, has raised the issue with regard to the filing of the appeal by respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner, being one without authority, placing reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.254/2024 dated 20.12.2024, submits that in the light of the totality circumstances and in the light of pendency of the suit, if liberty is reserved to the parties to raise and urge all the grounds in the pending suit, the purpose of the petition would be met with.

¶39

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection for the same.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:34597 WP No. 26237 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

6. In that view of the matter, without going into the

¶44

merits or otherwise of the contentions of the parties, this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the parties to urge and contest on all the questions in the pending suit in O.S.No.501/2024. The Trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the same, without being influenced by the orders subject matter of this petition.

¶45

In view of disposal of writ petition, pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶47

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 26.10.2023 in Case No. MIS/PETITION/SENIOR CITIZEN/02/2022-23 (Annexure-G), passed by respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner on respondent No.3's appeal, whereby the Deputy Commissioner set aside/reversed the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.12.2022 cancelling the deed of gift dated 12.04.2013.¶1
Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District (respondent No.1) · 26.10.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner invoked Sections 7 and 8 r/w Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against respondent No.3 seeking cancellation of the deed of gift dated 12.04.2013; the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and cancelled the gift deed.¶2
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who reversed the Assistant Commissioner's order; the present writ petition was filed against that reversal.¶2
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner passed away on 13.04.2024.¶3
Prior proceeding
By memo dated 04.07.2024 it was stated that the petitioner's legal representatives, her children/daughters (respondent Nos. 3 to 5), were already on record, and a request was made to transpose respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as petitioners.¶3
Prior proceeding
Subsequent to the Assistant Commissioner's order, the deceased petitioner had executed a registered will dated 30.03.2024.¶3
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 had already initiated a suit in O.S. No. 501 of 2024 claiming her share in the subject property based on the registered will.¶3
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that respondent No.3's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was filed without authority, placing reliance on the Division Bench order of this Court in W.A. No. 254/2024 dated 20.12.2024.¶4
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the totality of circumstances and the pendency of the suit, the purpose of the petition would be met if liberty were reserved to the parties to raise and urge all grounds in the pending suit.¶4
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection to the proposed course.¶5

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saba Simran Vs Union of India

Sri. D. R. Jayaprakash Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. M Bhaskar Rao Vs Union of India

Smt. Almas Fathima Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyappa Vs the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-2

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India