[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Dharanesh vs Smt Jayalakshmi on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
WP No. 10835 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.10835 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI DHARANESH
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT EW 10/263
2ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION
HASSAN 34.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LT NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
Digitally signed by R/AT EW 10/263, 2ND CROSS
ARUNKUMAR M S JAYANAGAR EXTN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HASSAN - 34.
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
WP No. 10835 of 2022
HC-KAR
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 ANNEXURE-
A PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT
(R2) TO THE EXTENT OF ENTER THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING ID
NO.12-2-521-274A, DOOR NO.274 A IN SY.NO.69/1 SAS 442
MEASURING 60 X 50 FEET IN WARD NO.12, SITUATED AT
CROSS ROAD, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION, HASSAN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing
the order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by
Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2, to the extent
of entering the khata in the name of the respondent
No.1 in respect of the subject property.
2. Heard Sri. Padeep K. C., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent petitioner; Sri. Mahesh
H., along with Sri. Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Mahantesh
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent No.2- State.
3. Sri Pradeep K.C., learned counsel for the
petitioner, contended that the order dated 27.01.2021
(Annexure-H) passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Hassan Sub-Division, that the Gift Deed dated
28.04.2016 (Annexure-B) is void, is incorrect. He
further contended that, while doing so, the Assistant
Commissioner directed the revenue authorities to
enter the names of the petitioner and respondent No.1
jointly in the khata in respect of the subject property.
However, the said order, according to the learned
counsel, has been erroneously interfered with by
respondent No.2 and therefore, sought for
interference of this Court.
4. It is further argued that a perusal of the
recitals in the Gift Deed dated 28.04.2016 does not
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
disclose any condition requiring the petitioner to
maintain respondent No.1. Therefore, the finding of
both the authorities declaring the Gift Deed as void
and same is contrary to the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs.
Ramti Devi and another, reported in (2024) 14
SCC 225. Learned counsel further submitted that
even though the Sub-Divisional Officer had ordered for
maintaining joint khata as per Annexure-H, however,
the same was wrongly set aside by the respondent
No.2, which calls for interference in the present writ
petition.
5. It is also contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that ,respondent No.2 has
set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner in
its entirety, including the observation directing entry
of joint khata in the names of the petitioner and
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
respondent No.1, which is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Mahesh H., learned counsel
for respondent No.1 submitted that the property in
question is self-acquired property of respondent No.1.
It is contended that the Assistant Commissioner
committed a serious error in directing entry of joint
khata in the names of the petitioner and respondent
No.1. Aggrieved by the said direction, respondent
No.1 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2,
who, after considering the material on record, has
rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, it is argued
that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2-
State, invited the attention to the object and purpose
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 'Act'). He places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan
Dixit and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787,
and contended that the object of the Act has to be
given due consideration while deciding disputes of the
present nature. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of
the writ petition.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that respondent No.1 is the mother of the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 executed a registered Gift
Deed dated 28.04.2016 in favour of the petitioner,
gifting the schedule property to the petitioner out of
love and affection.
9. A perusal of the recitals in the Gift Deed
clearly indicate that respondent No.1 has explicitly
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
referred to her maintenance by the petitioner. The
relevant recital reads as under:
"Whereas, the donor with a noble intention of looking
after, the Donee, with all care, love and affection, has
given the property mentioned in the schedule hereto,
to the control and custodyof the Donee."
(Underlined by me)
10. In view of the above recital, and following
the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Urmila Dixit (supra), particularly paragraphs
14 and 23 to 25, it is evident that the gift was
conditional and essentially connected to the obligation
of maintenance. Paragraphs 14 and 23 to 25 of the
said judgment reads as under:
"14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the
rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced
by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must be
interpreted and a construction that advances the
remedies of the Act must be adopted.
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such
an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her
petition under Section 23, it has been averred that
there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the
parties. In such a situation, the two conditions
mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately
interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the
legislation and not strictly which would render otiose
the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single
Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had
rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the
conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were
not complied with. We are unable to agree with the
view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a
strict view of a beneficial legislation.
24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must
clarify the observations made vide the impugned order
qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over
possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this
Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order
eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order
possession to be transferred. This would defeat the
purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the
elderly.
25. Another observation of the High Court that must
be clarified, is Section 23 being a standalone provision
of the Act. In our considered view, the relief available
to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically
linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the
Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases,
are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance
of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior
citizens to secure their rights promptly when they
transfer a property subject to the condition of being
maintained by the transferee.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Urmila Dixit (supra) had an occasion to consider the
earlier judgment in Sudesh Chikara (supra) and
upon such consideration, has clearly laid down the
legal position governing conditional gifts executed by
senior citizens.
12. Applying the said principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the considered
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5649
HC-KAR
opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid
of merits.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
