Karnataka High Court

Sri C R Sathyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:45312
                                                       WP No.15373 of 2021


                HC-KAR



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                      WRIT PETITION NO.15373 OF 2021 (GM-RES)


               BETWEEN:


                1.       SRI. C.R. SATHYANARAYANA
                         S/O LATE CHANNAGIRI RANGAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

                2.       SMT. C.S. DEVALEELA
                         W/O C.R.SATHYANARAYANA
                         AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

                         BOTH ARE R/OF #68/1, 4
                         RANGA MAHAL
                         2ND MAIN, P.J.EXTENSION
                         DAVANGERE - 577 002.
                                                              ....PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
ARUNKUMAR M S
                    SRI. SHAM A. NEMICAL)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
               AND:


               1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
                     M.S. BUILDING
                     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                     BENGALURU - 560001
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS
                     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:45312
                                   WP No.15373 of 2021


HC-KAR



2.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     DAVANGERE DISTRICT
     DAVANGERE - 570002.

3.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     DAVANGERE SUB DIVISION
     DAVANGERE - 577 002.

4.   SRI. C.S. SHARATH KUMAR
     S/O C.R. SATHYANARAYANA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     R/O #68/1 TO 4
     RANGA MAHAL, II MAIN
     P.J. EXTENSION
     DAVANGERE - 577 002.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN HI.NA.KA.A/CR-02/2020-21 DATED 30.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 12.02.2020 IN HI.NA.CR NO.1/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; 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

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

CAV ORDER

1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the Order

dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent

No.2 and Order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure-F) passed by the

respondent No.3, consequently, prayed for allowing the

application filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-D before

the respondent No.3.

2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of the adjudication of the

Writ Petition are that, the petitioners have two sons and a

daughter. Respondent No.4 is the second son of the

petitioners. The petitioner No.1 had acquired properties as per

the registered Partition Deed dated 30.06.1957, executed

amongst himself and his brothers. It is also stated in the Writ

Petition that, there was a registered Partition Deed dated

20.04.2013 in the family of the petitioners and their children

and as such, the petition schedule property had fallen to the

share of petitioner No.1, as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition.

It is further stated that, certain properties had fallen to the

share of respondent No.4 as per the registered Partition Deed

at Annexure-A and the respondent No.4 has let out the

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

premises to the tenements. It is also stated that, the

respondent No.4 had worked abroad for several years and after

his return, joined the petitioners and stayed along with the

petitioners. The respondent No.4 has quit his job and residing

with the petitioners along with his family. It is the case of the

petitioners that the respondent No.4 is gradually ill-treating the

petitioners and threatened the petitioners to dispossess them

from the schedule property. Hence, the petitioners have

approached the respondent No.3 by filing an application as per

Annexure-D. It is also stated by the petitioners that, the

respondent No.4 instead of finding an alternative residence for

his family members, has filed a frivolous suit in

O.S.No.13/2017, seeking relief of partition and separate

possession in respect of the schedule properties, inter alia,

challenged the Partition Deed dated 20.04.2013. The said suit

is pending consideration before the competent Court.

3. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that, the

respondent No.3, without considering the case of the

petitioners on merits, has passed the impugned order dated

12.02.2020 (Annexure-F), rejecting the application filed by the

petitioners and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

approached the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.2/2020-21 and

the respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-

G), dismissed the Appeal and being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.

4. I have heard Sri. G.K. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for

Sri. Sham A. Nemikal, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3

and Sri. M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

5. Sri. G.K. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, contended that, both the respondent - authorities

have erroneously appreciated the material on record without

considering the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act') and have committed an error in arriving at a

conclusion that, the suit in O.S.No.13/2017 is pending

consideration before the competent Civil Court which requires

to be adjudicated and the said finding recorded by both the

authorities, requires to be set aside. It is further argued by the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners by referring to the

order sheet maintained by this Court, wherein an alternative

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

premises has been located for the respondent No.4 to reside

separately and that apart, it is argued that, a Commissioner

was appointed with regard to the feasibility of dividing the

schedule property and the report of the Commissioner would

indicate that the schedule property is not suitable for division

by metes and bounds and therefore, there is no impediment for

passing an order of eviction of the respondent No.4 from the

schedule property. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners, refers to the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMALAKANT MISHRA

Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND OTHERS in SLP (C)

No.42786/2025 disposed of on 12.09.2025 and argued for

eviction of the respondent No.4 from the schedule property.

6. Per contra, Sri. M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the

respondent No.4, submitted that both the Courts below having

taken note of the fact that the suit is pending consideration

before the competent Court in O.S.No.13/2017, and therefore,

the petitioners cannot seek relief of eviction of the respondent

No.4. It is also argued by the learned counsel by referring to

Annexure-D, that the petitioners have deliberately not

mentioned the provision under which the application is filed

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

under the Act and that apart not claiming the maintenance as

per the provisions under the Act nor challenging any alienation

of the property made in favour of respondent No.4 by the

petitioners and therefore, sought to justify the impugned orders

at Annexure-F and G to the Writ Petition.

7. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for

the respondent No.4, referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of SAMTOLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF

U.P. AND OTHERS in SLP (C) 26651/2023 disposed of on

27.03.2025, in the case of SMT. S. VANITHA Vs. THE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

& OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.3822/2020 disposed of on

15.12.2020 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ

Petition.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with

regard to the relationship between the parties. Schedule

property has been acquired by the petitioner No.1 as per the

registered Partition Deed dated 30.06.1957. It is not in dispute

that, there is a Partition Deed dated 20.04.2013 between and

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

amongst the joint family members of the petitioners and

respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has filed suit in

O.S.No.13/2017 before the competent Civil Court, seeking

relief of partition and separate possession and further,

challenged the alleged Partition Deed dated 20.04.2013 in the

said suit, and further the suit is pending consideration before

the Civil Court. It is to be noted that, the respondent No.4 and

his family are residing along with the petitioners in the schedule

property. It is not the case of the petitioners that, they have

filed the application under the Act to nullify any registered

document executed in favour of the respondent No.4. It is not

the case of the petitioners that, the respondent No.4 is not

providing the amenities and necessary requirements of

petitioners nor taking care of the petitioners. The entire case of

the petitioners revolves around the agony of evicting the

respondent No.4 from the schedule property. In the backdrop

of these aspects, I have carefully examined the finding

recorded by both the respondent - authorities, in which, both

the authorities having taken note of the factual aspects on

record, rightly dismissed the claim made by the petitioners on

the ground that, the suit in O.S.No.13/2017 is pending

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

consideration before the competent Civil Court. It is also not in

dispute that the schedule property is one of the schedule

properties in the suit. The respondent No.4 has questioned the

Partition Deed dated 20.04.2013 in the aforementioned suit as

sham document and not binding on the respondent

No.4/plaintiff therein. It is also not in dispute that the suit

schedule property is the ancestral property of both the

petitioners and the respondent No.4. In the case of

KAMALAKANT MISHRA (supra), wherein, the appellant

therein was moved out of the schedule property by the

respondent therein and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

passed an order to evict the child as the act of the child was in

breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen/parent.

The facts in the present case is altogether different as the

parents are not claiming maintenance. In the case of

SAMTOLA DEVI (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph

No.29 to 31 held as follows:

"29. There is no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the aforesaid order Krishna Kumar has in any way humiliated his parents especially the appellant or has interfered with her living. It is not in dispute that he has been

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

paying maintenance as directed by the Family Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, if he has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father, in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein. Therefore, the Tribunal appears to be justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others.

30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II provides for maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or the property 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

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

for breach of the order issue a warrant for levying fines and may sentence such person to imprisonment for a term which may extend 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 v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District 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 had 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."

9. It is also relevant to extract paragraph 17 in the case of

SMT. S.VANITHA (supra) which reads as under:

"17. The substance of sub-section (2) of Section 23, as submitted by the second and third

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

respondents, is that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass an order directing the eviction of the appellant who is their daughter-in-law. According to the submission, the power to order eviction is implicit in the provision guaranteeing a "right to receive maintenance out of an estate" and the enforcement of that right. In supporting the submission, they have referred to the view which has been taken by several High Courts, indicating that the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in other words would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute. It is necessary to recapitulate that the situation in the present case is that the eviction was sought of the daughter-in-law i.e. the appellant. The land, where the house has been constructed, was originally purchased by the son of the applicants who are seeking eviction of their daughter-in-law. The son had purchased the property a few months before his marriage to the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

appellant. He had subsequently transferred the property by a registered sale deed to his father and the fact that it was for the same consideration after the lapse of several years is of significance. The father, in turn, executed a gift deed in favour of his spouse. The appellant has asserted that she had been living in the house, as her matrimonial residence, until the application was filed. Her spouse has (according to her) deserted her and their minor daughter and left them in the lurch. The electricity to the premises was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Their daughter has sought admission to an engineering degree course however her father, fourth respondent has not provided any financial support. The transfers which took place cannot be viewed in isolation from the context of the ongoing matrimonial dispute which has taken place. The issue is whether the appellant as the daughter-in-law and the minor daughter could have been ousted in the above manner."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUDESH

CHHIKARA Vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER (in Civil

Appeal No.174/2021 disposed of on 06.12.2022),

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011, at paragraph 11 to

14, has held as follows:

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

"11. 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. 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

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

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)

12. 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

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and

(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.

13. 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.

14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by Respondent 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

of Respondent 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to Respondent 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22-5-2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor

-- senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by Respondent 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition."

11. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in the aforementioned Judgments and applying

the ratio to the facts on record, makes it clear that, the

respondent No.4, being a member of the Joint Family consisting

of the petitioners and others, cannot be ordered to be evicted

under the provisions of the Act in view of pendency of the suit

in O.S.No.13/2017 before the competent Court. In my opinion,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, though argument is

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45312

HC-KAR

advanced for eviction of respondent No.4 and to locate an