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
NC: 2024:KHC:24615
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24615
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24615
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:24615
vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PHM
CT: BHK
