Karnataka High Court
Sri V Nanda Kumar vs The Assistant Commissioner on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11770 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. NANDA KUMAR
S/O B.N. VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
2. SMT. KAVYA SHREE
W/O V. NANDA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.17/1A, 5TH CROSS,
GOKULA EXTENSION,
DIWANARAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUHAS P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
2. SRI. VENKATESHAIAH
S/O LATE B. NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O B.N. VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT: NO.17/1A, 5TH CROSS
GOKULA EXTENSION,
DIWANARAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. ANANDEESWAR D.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
CASE MSC/CR/81/2019-20 DATED 22ND APRIL, 2021 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order
dated 22nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent
No.1 in Case No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20, wherein the petition filed
by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners herein under
Sections 4, 5 and 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act') came to be allowed.
2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication
of this writ petition are that the respondents 2 and 3 herein are
the parents of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 is the
Wife of the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 is the
absolute owner of the Site bearing No.750 situate at Gokula, 1st
Stage, 2nd Phase, Diwanarapalya, Gokula Extension, Bengaluru.
It is stated that the petitioner No.1 had filed Original Suit
No.8815 of 2017 against the respondents 2 and 3 before the
competent Civil Court, seeking relief of partition and separate
possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. In the
meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 have filed Case
No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20 before the respondent No.1 under
Sections 4, 5 and 22(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking
possession of the land. The respondent No.1, after considering
the material on record, by order dated 22nd April, 2021
(Annexure-A) allowed the petition and directed the petitioners
herein to handover the vacant possession of the entire petition
schedule property subject to the orders passed by this Court, in
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
Writ Petition No.15127 of 2019 dated 29th January, 2021 and in
the pending proceedings in Original Suit No.8815 of 2017.
Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ
petition.
3. Heard Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel appearing for
petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri.
Shivani Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2;
and Sri. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3.
4. Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed petition
before the respondent No.1, seeking award of Rs.10,000/-
towards their maintenance, however, the respondent No.1
passed an order to evict the petitioners from the petition
schedule property, which is impermissible under law. It is also
argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that
the respondents 2 and 3 are owning other immovable
properties including a Petrol Bunk and at the behest of the
daughter of the respondents 2 and 3, they have initiated the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
impugned proceedings against the petitioners. Accordingly, he
sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri. Shivani Shetty and Sri.
Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 and 3 respectively, sought for eviction of the
petitioners on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 are
under mental agony and suffering from the harassment from
the petitioners. Accordingly, they sought for eviction of the
petitioners for the schedule property.
6. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1
sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent
No.1.
7. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with
regard to relationship between the parties. The respondents 2
and 3 have approached the respondent No.1, seeking relief of
direction to the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month towards their maintenance as well as sought for
eviction of the petitioners herein from the schedule property. It
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein have preferred
Original Suit No.8815 of 2017 before the competent Civil Court,
seeking relief of partition and separate possession. It is argued
at Bar that the said suit filed by the petitioners came to be
withdrawn. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties that the Writ Petition No.15127 of
2019 is also disposed of on 29th January, 2021. It is not in
dispute that the respondent No.2 is owning a Petrol Bunk. In
the backdrop of these aspects, the respondent No.1 passed an
order allowing the petition filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and
directed the petitioners herein to hand over the vacant
possession of the schedule property. The language employed
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, provides for
transfer of property to be invalidated if such, transfer is made
in derogation of not providing basic amenities for maintenance
of the Senior Citizens. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of SAMTOLA DEVI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669 at paragraphs
30 to 32 held as under:
"30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II
provides for maintenance of parents and senior
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or a
parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own
earning owned by him shall be entitled to make an
application against his parent or grand parent or
against one or more of his children (not a minor) or
where the senior citizen is issueless against specified
relatives to fulfil his needs to enable him to lead a
normal life. The Tribunal constituted under the Act on
such an application may provide for the monthly
allowance for the maintenance and expenses and in
the event they fail to comply with the order, the
Tribunal may for breach of the order issue a warrant
for levying fines and may sentence such person to
imprisonment for a term which may extent to one
month or until payment is made whichever is earlier.
31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act,
nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings
for eviction of persons from any premises owned or
belonging to such a senior person. It is only on
account of the observations made by this Court in S.
Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District and Ors. that the Tribunal under the Senior
Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary
and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior
citizens. The Tribunal thus head acquired jurisdiction to
pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which
otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property
to be void if it is against the interest of the senior
citizen.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
32. The aforesaid decision was followed by
this Court in Urmila Dixit (supra). However, even in
the aforesaid case the court has only held that in a
given case, the Tribunal "may order" eviction but it is
not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of
eviction in every case. The Appellate Tribunal has not
recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of
Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to
ensure the protection of the Senior Citizen."
8. It is also relevant to deduce the law declared by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMALAKANT MISHRA
vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND OTHERS (SLP (Civil)
Dairy No.42786 of 2025 decided on 12th September, 2025)
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077 particularly the
paragraph 7, which reads as under:
"7. The framework of the Act clearly notes
that the law was enacted to address the plight of older
persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare
legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so
as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on
several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is
well within its powers of a senior citizens, when there
is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior
citizen. In the present case, despite being financially
stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to
reside in the properties owned by him, thereby
frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell
in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely
untenable ground."
9. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 12 to 15 in
the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA vs. RAMTI DEVI AND
ANOTHER reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, which reads as
under:
"Consideration of submissions
12. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it is
necessary to advert to the legal aspects. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate acting as the Maintenance Tribunal
under the 2007 Act has invoked the power under Section
23 to declare that the subject release deed was void. The
2007 Act has been enacted for the purpose of making
effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of
parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised
under the Constitution of India. The Maintenance Tribunal
has been established under Section 7 to exercise various
powers under the 2007 Act. Section 8 provides that the
Maintenance Tribunal, subject to any rules which may be
framed by the Government, has to adopt such summary
procedure while holding inquiry, as it deems fit.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
13. Apart from the power to grant maintenance, the
Tribunal exercises important jurisdiction under Section 23
of the 2007 Act which reads thus:
"23.Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances.--(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 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.
(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.
(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."
(emphasis supplied)
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:
(a) 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; and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
(b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such
amenities and physical needs to the transferor.
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.
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."
10. On careful consideration of the aforementioned
judgments, I am of the view that the Tribunal is bound to
invalidate the transaction made by the Senior Citizens, only
when the Transferee fails to provide the basic amenities and
physical needs to the Transferor and ought to have declared
such transaction as void. The facts on record and also the
Photographs produced along with writ papers makes it clear
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
that the respondents 2 and 3 are deriving financial benefits
from the Petrol Bunk and have immovable properties. There is
no alienation of property by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour
of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, taking into
consideration fact that the respondent No.1 had ordered for
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioners to
the respondents 2 and 3 herein in the claim petition, I am of
the view that the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 to
order for eviction of the petitioners from the schedule property
would go against the object of the Senior Citizens Act.
11. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that
there are three floors in the house in which the respondents 2
and 3 are residing. Therefore, there is no impediment for the
respondents 2 and 3 to allow the petitioners herein to reside in
the one of the three floors since, the same would not come in
the way of wellbeing of the respondents 2 and 3, if so desires.
Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent No.1
committed an error in allowing the petition and having
determined the maintenance to be payable by the petitioners
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45357
WP NO.11770 OF 2021
HC-KAR
herein, erroneously ordered for eviction of the petitioners from
the schedule property, which is per se contrary to the Senior
Citizens. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.1 requires to be set-aside in this
writ petition. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition allowed;
ii) Impugned order dated 22nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby set-aside.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE