Sri.T.J. Venkataswamy v. Smt C H Rudramma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 22304 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. T.J. VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE D JAVARASHETTY AGED 77 YEARS C/O J.P SHANAKR, NO.2, MUTHUT FINANCE BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, MARIYAPPANAPALYA CIRCLE, JNANABHARTHI POST, BENGALURU - 560 056.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT. C H RUDRAMMA W/O VENKATASWAMY R/AT NO.875/4, NEHARU EXTENSION, KUSHALANAGAR-571234.

¶2SMT. T.V. VEENA, D/O T.J. VENKATASWAMY, W/O D.V. SHESHIKUMAR, R/AT NO. 1053, 6TH MAIN, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, JNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU - 560056.

by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:54544( WP(No.(22304(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

3., SRI,T.,V,RAVI, S/O,,VENKATASWAMY,, R/AT,NO.,875/4,, NEHARU,EXTENSION,, KUSHALNAGAR-571234., ,

4., THE,BENGALURU,DISTRICT,, MAINTENANCE,AND,WELFARE,OF,PARENTS,AND, SENIOR,CITIZEN,CITIZENS, APPELLATE,TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED,BY,SPECIAL, DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,-I,, BENGALURU,-,560009., ,

5., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER/,TRIBUNAL,FOR, MAINTENANCE,AND,WELFARE,OF,PARENTS,AND, SENIOR,CITIZENS,ACT, BENGALURU,SOUTH,SUB-, DIVISION,, BENGALURU-560009., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,GANAPATHI,C,V.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R3;, SRI.,MAHANTESH,SHETTAR,,AGA,FOR,R4,&,R5), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO,, QUASH, , THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, PASSED, BY, THE, APPELLATE, TRIBUNAL, /, RESPONDENT, NO.4, DATED, 06/09/2023, IN, MAG(4)/SC/CR/23/2021-22,AS,PER,ANNEXURE-F,AND,DISMISS, THE, APPEAL, OF, RESPONDENTS, BY, CONFIRMING, THE, ORDER, OF, FIFTH, RESPONDENT, DATED, 17/11/2020, VIDE, ANNX-D, IN, CASE,NO.MSC/SC/CR/09/2019-20.,,

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

¶1In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure-F) inter alia, sought for confirmation of the order passed by respondent No.5 at Annexure-D dated 17.11.2020.

¶2Heard Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ganapathi C.V., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶3It is contended by Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by inviting the attention of the Court to S.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.254/2024

disposed of on 20.12.2024, and contended that, the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the provisions of the Act and accordingly, sought for allowing the Writ Petition.

¶4Per contra, Sri. Ganapathi C.V., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and also she is a senior citizen and therefore, the appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the Act and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-F.

¶6In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is forthcoming from the Writ Petition that the petitioner herein had executed the gift deed dated 17.01.2018 in favour of respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. It is also to be noted that Release Deed dated 01.03.2018 (Annexure-B) was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein has presented petition

under Sections 5 and 23 of the Act, seeking to declare that the Gift Deed dated

17.01.2018 and Release Deed dated

01.03.2018 are null and void, and respondent No.5, by order dated 17.11.2020, allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein had filed appeal under S.16 of the Act before respondent No.4 and respondent No.4, by Order dated

06.09.2023 (Annexure-F), allowed the appeal in part and modified the order passed by respondent No.5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

¶7The Division Bench of this Court, by considering the scope and ambit of S.16 of the Act in W.A.No.254/2024 at paragraph Nos.14 and 15, arrived at the conclusion that the appellate jurisdiction under S.16 of the Act has to be invoked only by a transferor / senior citizen or a parent who has gifted / transferred the property in question.

¶8Taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal along with the observation made at para 14 makes it clear that the

Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under S.16 of the Act and pass order as per Annexure-F. Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court to the facts of the case on hand, the gift deed dated

17.01.2018 (Annexure-A) and the release deed dated

01.03.2018(Annexure-B) executed in favour of respondent No.2 have to be held as null and void. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and accordingly, pass the following: ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.4 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.5 stands confirmed.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22