Puttahanumaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner And

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15267 Kant
Judgement Date : 2 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Puttahanumaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner And on 2 July, 2024

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:24615
                                                     WP No. 13764 of 2022




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 13764 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
                BETWEEN:

                      PUTTAHANUMAIAH,
                      S/O RANGARAMAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE
                      C.S. PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
                      TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 213.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. LOKESH S.G, ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
                      APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PARENTS AND
                      SENIOR CITIZENS MAINTENANCE,
Digitally             TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
signed by
YAMUNA K L
Location:       2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
High Court of         PRESIDENT FOR PARENTS AND SENIOR
Karnataka
                      CITIZENS MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
                      TUMKUR SUB DIVISONA, TUMKUR,
                      TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

                3.    SRI. RANGARAMAIAH
                      S/O LATE SHETTALLAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:24615
                                       WP No. 13764 of 2022




4.   SMT. RENUKAMMA,
     D/O RANGARAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5.   SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
     S/O RANGARAMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

6.   SMT. PADMA,
     D/O RANGARAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 6 ARE
     RESIDING AT MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
     C.S. PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 213.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 AND R6;
    SRI. G.T. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

      THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN

M.A.G(1) 171/2021 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,


      THIS   PETITION,   COMING   ON     FOR   PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:24615
                                          WP No. 13764 of 2022




                             ORDER

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) Quash the impugned order dated 25-05-2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 in M.A.G(1)/171/2021 vide Annexure-A,.
                 b)    Quash the impugned order
           dated    07-01-2022     passed    by  the
           Respondent No.2 in No.PAPOSAM AND
SENIOR NAA.RA.KA.NO.42/21-22, vide Annexure-E,.
c) to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court be pleased to deems fir and proper, in the above case, to meet the ends of justice."

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 11.12.2020, respondent No.3 viz., father of the petitioner executes a registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which, the Khatha gets transferred to his name, in respect of the subject premises. Subsequently, respondent No.3 initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 ('for short 'Act of 2007') against the petitioner seeking various reliefs. On 23.12.2021, the said application filed by respondent No.3, which was -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24615 WP No. 13764 of 2022 dismissed by respondent No.2, who subsequently reviewed and rectified the said order.

4. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 files an appeal before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed cancellation of the aforesaid registered gift deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 23 of the Act of 2007 as well as the registered gift deed dated 11.12.2020, in order to point out that the said gift deed did not contain any condition directing the petitioner to pay maintenance as a condition precedent for the purpose of acquiring right under the gift deed. It is therefore, submitted in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHIKKARA Vs. RAMTI DEVI and ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.174/2021 dated 06.12.2022, in the absence of any recital in the gift deed, which mandates that the petitioner had to pay maintenance as a condition precedent for acquiring right as a donee under the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24615 WP No. 13764 of 2022 gift deed, the question of cancelling the said gift deed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner was incorrect and the same deserves to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 25.05.2022 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner will indicate that the said contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SUDESH CHIKKARA's case supra have not been considered by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner thereby resulting the erroneous conclusion.

8. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, since respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider and appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and recitals in the gift deed as well as the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SUDESH CHIKKARA's case supra, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem -6- NC: 2024:KHC:24615 WP No. 13764 of 2022 it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 25.05.2022 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

9. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 25.05.2022, is hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

iv) Parties undertake to appear before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner on 22.07.2024.

v) Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from 22.07.2024.

-7-

NC: 2024:KHC:24615 WP No. 13764 of 2022

vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK