Allowed

Sri. B.Y. Santosh Raj Urs v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026WP/27088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son challenged the Assistant Commissioner's order cancelling a gift deed executed by his father under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. Holding that the gift deed contained no maintenance condition as required by Section 23(1) per Sudesh Chhikara, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.06.2019 of the Assistant Commissioner cancelled gift deed set aside; father left free to avail appropriate remedy; pending IAs closed.

Sri. B.Y. Santosh Raj Urs Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 27088 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. B.Y. SANTOSH RAJ URS S/O B YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT # 318, ARASU MANSION, 12^TH A MAIN ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. N GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION AND CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

SRI. B YELLAPPA, S/O LATE BYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT #67/1, MANGALA NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, BDA ITTAMADU LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. MANGALA B Y, W/O VIKRAM RAVINDRANATHAN, D/O B YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT # 67/1, MANGALA NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, BDA ITTAMADU LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B YELLAPPA(R2 IN PERSON); R3 IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶23

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R-1 IN RELATED TO CASE NO.MSC/CR/40/2018-19 AND QUASH THE ORDER

¶24

DATED 12.06.2019 PASSED BY R-1 IN CASE NO.MSC/CR/40/2018-19;AS PER ANNEXURE-P AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS CASE NO.MSC/CR/40/2018-19; DT. 12.06.19 ANNEXURE-P ON THE FILE OF R-1.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶32

prayer.

¶33

“Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-

¶34

a. Call for the entire records from the file of respondent No.1 in related to case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19;

¶35

b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1 r-1 in case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19 as per

¶36

Annexure-P;

¶37

c. Consequently dismiss case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19 dated 12.06.2019 Annexure-P on the file of respondent No.1.

¶38

d. Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with costs, in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶39

The petitioner before this Court is the son. The second respondent is a father. Third respondent is the daughter

¶40

of respondent No.2. The father has filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) before the Assistant Commissioner seeking

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

cancellation of the gift deed dated 23.11.2012 which is registered on 12.07.2013 pertaining to the scheduled property in favour of the son i.e. the petitioner herein and further sought direction to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the father. The parties are referred to as father and son for the sake of convenience.

¶45

It is the case of the father that he is the absolute owner of the property and out of love and affection towards his son he has executed a gift deed in the year 2012, which is registered on 12.07.2013. It is the case of the father that after obtaining the gift deed, his son became very greedy and violent against him and started harassment and assault very frequently, due to which the relationship between the father and the son became stale and reached to worse situation. Even the father has filed a police complaint with the jurisdictional police. The father has mercilessly thrown-out from the house on 07.01.2017 keeping all belongings and presently he is staying with his daughter. Hence, he has come before this Court with the relief as discussed above.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is the case of the son that the father has voluntarily left the house, even though he is providing all basic necessities to the father. It is a case of the son that during the year 2015-16, without no reason, the father started behaving detrimentally to the interest of the family members by listening to the third persons who are unconnected with the family. He started listening to the daughter and the son-in-law and they polluted the mind of the father and ultimately the father started to communicate by writing notices to all his children. Further the wife and the son were isolated. When nothing has rectified, the father has left the family. It is the case of the son that the mother is staying along with him and father has left the company and according to the son, such a relief cannot be granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order impugned by exercising the powers conferred under the Act has cancelled the gift deed dated 12.07.2013 and declared it as null and void and directed the jurisdictional Sub-Register to comply with the order. While passing the order, the Assistant Commissioner has discussed

¶50

the purport of the Act and Section 23 of the Act. It is observed that the reasons behind approaching the Tribunal by the senior

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

citizens for the reasons that they have been neglected by their children and for other reasons. The Act is the special beneficial act for the welfare of the senior citizen. It is quite apparent from the records that the son may have been harassing the father due to which the father approached the police station several times. If at all the son has taken care of the father with love and affection as previously taken care, he would not have approached the police station several times and the tribunal seeking justice against the son and hence the petition is very much maintainable and accordingly passed the order. Aggrieved thereby, the son is before this Court.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the son submits that under Section 23 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner has no such jurisdiction to set aside the gift deed in the facts and circumstances of the case, where there is no condition in the gift deed that the son has to take care of the father. A gift deed executed in the year 2013 cannot be cancelled in the year 2019. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Mati Devi & Anr¹ in paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14. He also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

¶55

1 Civil Appeal No.174/2021 dated 06.12.2022

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Court in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and ors² in paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22 and 24. Further, he has relied on another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri V Anjinappa @ V.V Anjinappa Vs. Smt. V.A Lakshmi and others³ , which has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case referred to supra. Relying on these judgments, submits that the gift deed does not attract the conditions laid downunder Section 23 of the Act and the Assistant Commissioner has no power to declare the gift deed as null and void.

¶60

The father who has appeared as party-in-person has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Urmila Dixit case as well as Sudesh Chhikara’s cases referred to supra. Further, he has also relied on the judgement of the division bench of the Madras High Court in S.Mala Vs. District Arbitrator & District Collector, Nagapatinam District⁴ in paragraph Nos. 23, 24, 25, 29 and 33. He has relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Venkataiah Vs.

¶61

2 Civil Appeal No.10927/2024 dated 02.01.2025

¶62

3 W.A.No.1154/2022 dated 19.08.2024

¶63

4 W.A.No.3582/2024 dated 06.03.2025

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

State of Karnataka⁵ and he relied on paragraph No.18 to 18.14, where it is observed that an explicit recital in the gift deed obligating the donee to maintain the senior citizen is not mandatory for invoking Section 23(1) of the Act because such obligation can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties. Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is legal and valid and in consonance with the provisions of the Act.

¶68

Learned AGA submits that considering the fact that the father is thrown out of the house and has not been taken care and considering the conduct of the parties and the plight of the senior citizen, an order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner by cancelling the gift deed that is executed in favour of the son. It is submitted that the order that is passed by the Assistant Commissioner is in consonance with the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and that no interference is called for.

¶69

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts in this

¶70

5 2026 SCC Online Kar 489

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

case are that a gift deed of the year 2012 was executed on 12.07.2013. The application under Section 23 of the Act is filed before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2018. While passing the order impugned, what has been observed by the Assistant Commissioner is that he has discussed about the object of the Act and further, father has given complaint to the police on several occasions, if son is taking care of the father and if he had been good with the father, he would not have filed a complaint and the Assistant Commissioner has said that in these circumstances, it has to be inferred that the son is not taking care of the father. As such the gift deed has to be set aside and accordingly has set aside and held that it is void ab initio .

¶75

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Urmila Dixit case and

¶76

even in Sudesh Chhikara’s case referred to supra has discussed the scope of Section 23 of the Act. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract Section 23 of the Act.

¶77

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. —

¶78

(1)Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall

¶79

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

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 of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

¶82

(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.

¶83

(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.”

¶84

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment considering the respective contentions of the parties, has specifically dealt with the scope of Section 23 of the Act and also has observed that, to satisfy Section 23(1) of the Act, the parties shall fulfil that the transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. If the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence and

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:20768 WP No. 27088 of 2019

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

it becomes voidable. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that whenever an application is filed under Section 23 of the Act such conditions must be established in the said deed. The father has relied on the judgments of the Madras High Court in S.Mala’s case and also a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Venkataiah’s case referred to supra. In those cases, the interpretation that is given to Section 23 of the Act is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case referred to supra. When the particular provision is interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a particular manner, when the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is the law of the land, it is imperative that the Courts are bound to follow the same. In those circumstances, this Court cannot follow the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court or the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In these circumstances in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case referred to supra, there is no condition in the said gift deed and once there is no condition, it fails to satisfy the conditions laid down under Section 23(1) of the Act. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶89