SMT DRAKSHAYINI @ GIRIJA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
®
CNR: KAHC010752062025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 34895 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT DRAKSHAYINI @ GIRIJA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O CHANDRU
2. CHANDRU Y
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O YELLAPPA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
ND TH
2 MAIN, 7 CROSS
VINOBANAGAR
DAVANAGERE POST, TALUK AND VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE-577006
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION
SHIMOGA-577201
2. G BAIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O GANGANNA
KAMBADAL, HOSUR
KASABA HOBLI
BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. AZHAR ALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 AND 06.10.2025 IN NO. HE
NA CR. 02 OF 2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEXURE -A AND B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.09.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
A. Quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 and
06.10.2025 in No.He Na CR:02 of 2025 passed by
st
the 1 Respondent as per Annexure-A and B in
the interest of justice and equity.
B. Issue any other writ or order or direction which
the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts
and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Respondent No.2,
Petitioner No.2 is the husband of Petitioner No.1 and
thus the son-in-law of Respondent No.2. Respondent
No.2 had filed an application under Section 23 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the
“ Senior Citizens Act ”) before Respondent No.1-
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
Assistant Commissioner seeking cancellation of a
registered release deed dated 09.01.2025 executed
by Respondent No.2 in favour of Petitioner No.1.
Respondent No.1 had allowed the same vide its order
dated 08.09.2025 and subsequently a correction was
made on 06.10.2025. The Petitioners are before this
Court challenging the said order.
3. Sri.Sachin.B.S., learned counsel for the Petitioners,
contends that:
3.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
Respondent No. 2 entered into an Agreement of
Sale dated 31.07.2023 in favour of Petitioner
No. 1 in respect of the property bearing Survey
No. 42, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas, situated at
Hunasekatte Village, Kasba-2 Hobli,
Bhadravathi Taluk, for a total consideration of
Rs.17,25,000/. Under the agreement, a sum of
Rs.7,25,000/- was paid at the time of its
execution, and the balance of Rs.10,00,000/-
was agreed to be paid within 6 months of the
execution of the Agreement of Sale.
3.2. Learned counsel further submits that
Respondent No. 2 subsequently decided not to
execute the Sale Deed and instead executed a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
Release Deed, registered on 09.01.2025, in
favour of Petitioner No. 1, relinquishing all his
rights in the property. He contends that the
transaction was for consideration and was not a
gratuitous transfer.
3.3. In this regard, he relies on a receipt dated
01.08.2023. His submission is that the sons of
Respondent No.2, i.e., the brothers of Petitioner
No.1 had received an amount of Rs.17,25,000/-
from Petitioner No.1, and had no objection to
the said property being settled in favour of
Petitioner No.1 under the Will dated
09.08.2023.
3.4. Learned counsel submits that, following the
execution of the Release Deed, the name of
Petitioner No. 1 was entered in the revenue
records and a corresponding entry was made in
the Mutation Register. He contends that the
Agreement of Sale, the receipt and the Release
Deed establish that the transaction was for
consideration. However, these documents and
the nature of the transaction were not properly
considered by the Assistant Commissioner while
passing the impugned order.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
3.5. Learned counsel further submits that the
Release Deed does not contain any condition
requiring Petitioner No. 1 to provide basic
amenities or meet the basic needs of
Respondent No. 2. He therefore contends that
there was no breach of any such condition and
that Respondent No. 2 could not have sought
cancellation of the Release Deed under Section
23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
3.6. On these grounds, learned counsel contends
that the transaction was supported by
consideration and that the Assistant
Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the
Release Deed under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act. He submits that the failure to
consider the relevant documents and
circumstances has resulted in an erroneous
order and seeks to have the impugned order
set aside.
4. Sri Azhar Ali., learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 would submit that:
4.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the daughter of Respondent
No. 2, and Petitioner No. 2 is her husband.
They took advantage of the age of Respondent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
No. 2 and obtained his signatures on
documents prepared by them. It was in these
circumstances that Respondent No. 2 was
constrained to file an application under Section
23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
4.2. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No. 2
and his wife, Gauramma, who is the mother of
Petitioner No. 1, had earlier executed a Will
bequeathing the property in favour of Petitioner
No. 1. The Will was intended to take effect only
after the demise of both Respondent No. 2 and
his wife. He further submits that Gauramma
had no independent right, title or interest in the
property. According to him, the Will was
executed on the understanding that Petitioner
No. 1 would take care of and maintain her
parents during their lifetime.
4.3. Learned counsel further submits that
Respondent No. 2 subsequently came to know
that mutation entries had been made in the
name of Petitioner No. 1. Believing that the
entries had been made on the basis of the Will,
he filed an application under Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act seeking cancellation of those
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
entries. It was only after Petitioner No. 1 filed
her objections and advanced arguments that
Respondent No. 2 came to know of the Release
Deed and the other documents relied upon by
her, namely, the Agreement of Sale and the
receipt.
4.4. With regard to the Agreement of Sale dated
31.07.2023, learned counsel submits that it
was not genuinely executed by Respondent No.
2 and was prepared by the Petitioners to create
a document relating to the property. He further
contends that the receipt dated 01.08.2023
produced by Petitioner No. 1 is fabricated, as it
refers to a Will dated 09.08.2023, which was
allegedly executed after the date of the receipt.
4.5. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No. 2
had signed a blank document and/or that his
signatures were forged. According to him,
Respondent No. 2 could not have signed a
receipt on 01.08.2023 acknowledging a Will
dated 09.08.2023, which had not yet been
executed. He therefore disputes the
genuineness of the receipt.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
4.6. Learned counsel further denies that any
consideration was paid by Petitioner No. 1 to
Respondent No. 2. He submits that the amount
of Rs.7,25,000/- stated to have been paid
under the Agreement of Sale was neither paid
by Petitioner No. 1 nor received by Respondent
No. 2. He also denies that the total amount of
Rs.17,25,000, including the balance of
Rs.10,00,000, was paid or received. On this
basis, he contends that the claim of the
Petitioners that the Release Deed was
supported by consideration is false.
4.7. Taking these circumstances together, learned
counsel submits that the Petitioners' case rests
on documents whose genuineness Respondent
No. 2 seriously disputes. He denies having
executed the Agreement of Sale or the receipt
in favour of Petitioner No. 1. He further
disputes the Petitioners' claim that the Release
Deed was executed after the death of his wife,
when there was no one to look after him, and
contends that the Petitioners' version cannot be
accepted.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
4.8. Learned counsel submits that the Assistant
Commissioner considered these aspects while
passing the impugned order. According to him,
the allegations regarding the execution of the
documents, the absence of consideration and
the circumstances surrounding the transaction
were taken into account while deciding the
application filed by Respondent No. 2.
4.9. Learned counsel lastly submits that the
impugned order dated 08.09.2025 contained
certain errors, which were subsequently
corrected by a corrigendum dated 06.10.2025.
He contends that the issuance of the
corrigendum cannot, by itself, be a ground to
interfere with the order. He therefore submits
that the Petitioners have not made out a case
for interference and that the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri Sachin.B.S., learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Sri Mohammed Jafar Shah., learned
AGA appearing for Respondent No.1, and Sri Azhar
Ali., learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2.
Perused papers.
6. The points that would arise for determination are:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
1. Whether the Release Deed must
contain a condition requiring the
releasee to take care of the releasor
for Section 23 of the Senior Citizens
Act to be invoked?
2. Whether, in the present case, the
order of the Assistant Commissioner
suffers from any infirmity requiring
this Court to intercede by setting aside
the impugned orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner?
3. What order?
7. This Court answers the above points as follows:
8. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Release
Deed must contain a condition requiring the
releasee to take care of the releasor for Section
23 of the Senior Citizens Act to be invoked?
8.1. In Sri Venkataiah v. State of Karnataka
[W.P. No. 13313 of 2025], this Court, after
considering various decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court, held that the
absence of an express condition in a transfer
document requiring the transferee to maintain
the transferor does not, by itself, prevent the
Assistant Commissioner from exercising
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act.
8.2. The relevant consideration is whether the
transfer was made subject to an understanding
or agreement that the transferee would provide
for the senior citizen and whether such an
understanding is specifically pleaded in the
application filed under Section 23 of the Act.
Therefore, the absence of such a condition in
the document of transfer cannot, by itself, be
treated as conclusive against the senior citizen.
8.3. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 was
about 74 years old at the time of execution of
the Release Deed. His wife had predeceased
him, and their two sons and one daughter were
all married. The material circumstances
surrounding the property and the execution of
the Release Deed must, therefore, be
considered while examining the claim made by
Respondent No. 2.
8.4. The records indicate that a partition of the
properties took place on 06.09.2023. However,
the subject property, bearing Survey No. 42 of
Hunasekatte Village, was not included in the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
said partition. Further, under the
Relinquishment Deed dated 06.09.2023, the
sons relinquished their rights in the subject
property in favour of Respondent No. 2 and his
wife. Consequently, the sons did not retain any
right in the said property under that deed.
These circumstances are relevant because the
subject property remained with Respondent No.
2 and his wife and, on the material placed
before this Court, appears to have been an
important source of support for them during
their old age.
8.5. In this background, the contention of
Respondent No. 2 that the Release Deed was
executed on the understanding or expectation
that Petitioner No. 1 would take care of him in
his old age cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that the Release Deed does not
expressly impose such an obligation on
Petitioner No. 1. The nature of the transaction,
the age and circumstances of Respondent No.
2, the position of the subject property and the
specific averments made in the application filed
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are
all relevant to the consideration of his claim.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
The absence of an express stipulation in the
Release Deed does not, by itself, disprove the
alleged understanding between the parties.
8.6. It is necessary to distinguish between the
existence of an express condition in the transfer
document and the existence of an
understanding or agreement forming the basis
of the transfer. Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act cannot be applied or excluded
solely by looking at whether the document
contains a specific clause requiring the
transferee to maintain the transferor. Where
the senior citizen specifically alleges that the
transfer was made on the understanding that
the transferee would provide for his needs, the
Assistant Commissioner is required to examine
that claim in the light of the pleadings and the
surrounding circumstances. The absence of an
express condition in the document does not, by
itself, deprive the authority of jurisdiction to
consider the application.
8.7. In view of the principles laid down in Sri
Venkataiah and the circumstances pleaded by
Respondent No. 2 in the present case, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
objection that the Release Deed contains no
condition requiring Petitioner No. 1 to maintain
Respondent No. 2 cannot, by itself, defeat the
proceedings under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act. The specific assertion that the
transfer was made on the understanding that
Petitioner No. 1 would look after Respondent
No. 2 in his old age is required to be considered
in accordance with law.
8.8. Accordingly, this Court answers point No. 1 by
holding that an express condition in the Release
Deed requiring the releasee to maintain the
releasor is not, by itself, a prerequisite for
invoking Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.
Where the application specifically alleges that
the transfer was made subject to an
understanding or agreement that the transferee
would take care of the senior citizen, the
absence of such a condition in the document
does not bar the Assistant Commissioner from
examining the claim under the said provision.
9. Answer to point No.2: Whether, in the present
case, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
suffers from any infirmity requiring this Court
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
to intercede by setting aside the impugned
orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner?
9.1. The rival contentions and the documents relied
upon by the parties have to be examined in the
context of the circumstances in which the
Release Deed came to be executed. Respondent
No. 2 contends that a joint Will had been
executed in favour of Petitioner No. 1, under
which she was to acquire rights over the
subject property only after the demise of both
Respondent No. 2 and his wife. The relevant
averments made by Respondent No. 2 in his
application under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act have not been disputed by the
Petitioners.
9.2. This circumstance provides the background
against which the subsequent Agreement of
Sale and Release Deed must be considered. The
issue is not merely whether a Release Deed
was executed, but whether the Petitioners have
satisfactorily established the nature of the
transaction and the alleged payment of
consideration on which their claim rests.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
9.3. The Agreement of Sale dated 31.07.2023 is
stated to have been executed by Respondent
No. 2 and his wife in favour of Petitioner No. 1
in respect of the subject property for a total
consideration of Rs.17,25,000/-. According to
the agreement, a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was
paid in cash at the time of its execution, while
the balance of Rs.10,00,000/- was payable
within six months from the date of the
agreement. An endorsement dated 06.02.2024,
purportedly executed in continuation of the
Agreement of Sale, records receipt of the said
balance amount in cash as a single lump sum.
Respondent No. 2, however, specifically denies
having received the alleged advance.
9.4. Since the Petitioners rely on the agreement to
contend that the transaction was supported by
consideration, the alleged payment assumes
significance. In the face of the denial by
Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners were required
to place material in support of their assertion
that the amount had, in fact, been paid.
9.5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner was that the receipt dated
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
01.08.2023 evidences the payment made.
Hence, he was called upon to place on record
the means for such payment. Despite having
been called upon to produce relevant material,
the Petitioners have not placed any material on
record to demonstrate that they had the
financial means or access to funds sufficient to
make the alleged payments totalling
Rs.17,25,000/-. In the context of the specific
denial by Respondent No. 2, the absence of
supporting or corroborative material is relevant
in assessing the credibility of the Petitioners’
claim. The alleged payment therefore remains
unsupported by independent material other
than the documents whose contents and
reliability are themselves disputed.
9.6. The receipt dated 01.08.2023 relied upon by
the petitioner must be considered in the context
of its contents and the transaction to which it
relates. The amount of Rs. 17,25,000/- referred
to in the receipt is not in dispute. The learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the
receipt to contend that the brothers of
Petitioner No. 1 had received the said amount
from Petitioner No. 1 on 01.08.2023 and that,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
since the payment had been made by the
petitioners, the release executed subsequently
by Respondent No. 2 is valid. The receipt,
stated to have been executed on 01.08.2023,
refers to a Will dated 09.08.2023. The receipt
could not have been executed on 01.08.2023
while referring to a Will that was executed
subsequently. The receipt is, therefore, a
doubtful document and cannot be relied upon
by this Court.
9.7. Even otherwise, the receipt does not refer to
any amount having been received by
Respondent No. 2. The receipt refers to an
amount received by the brothers of Petitioner
No. 1. Hence, the consideration, if any, is, even
according to the petitioner, alleged to have
been paid to the brothers and not to
Respondent No. 2 or their mother. The siblings
cannot enter into a transaction or arrangement
among themselves for the purposes of dividing
the property of Respondent No. 2 and impose
an obligation on Respondent No. 2 to execute a
Release Deed in favour of the Petitioner. Thus,
the consideration, if any, paid to the brothers
cannot constitute consideration received by
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
Respondent No. 2 so as to take the transaction
out of the purview of Section 23 of the Senior
Citizens Act.
9.8. Another circumstance that needs to be taken
into consideration is the fact that the
Agreement of Sale dated 31.07.2023 records
payment of Rs.7,25,000/- and provides for
payment of the balance of Rs.10,00,000/-
within six months. The receipt executed the
very next day i.e., on 01.08.2023, on the other
hand, refers to the entire amount of
Rs.17,25,000/- in connection with the
relinquishment of rights by the brothers of
Petitioner No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2
and his wife. The endorsement dated
06.02.2024 on the Agreement of Sale
subsequently records receipt of the balance
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by Respondent No.2,
both of which contradict each other. The
relationship between the transaction referred to
in the receipt and the Agreement of Sale, and
the circumstances in which the entire
consideration came to be recorded as paid in
the receipt before the endorsement recording
payment of the balance amount, have not been
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
satisfactorily explained. Respondent No.2
denies receipt of the consideration and disputes
the genuineness of the Agreement of Sale. In
these circumstances, the receipt and the
endorsement must be assessed in the context
of their respective contents and the other
material on record; neither can, in isolation, be
treated as conclusive proof that the
consideration under the Agreement of Sale was
paid to Respondent No.2.
9.9. These circumstances are also relevant to the
Petitioners’ contention that the Release Deed
was voluntarily executed by Respondent No. 2.
The mere production of a document bearing his
signature does not, in the face of the specific
objections raised, resolve the dispute regarding
the circumstances in which the transaction took
place or establish that the consideration
claimed by the Petitioners was paid.
Respondent No. 2 has disputed both the alleged
payment and the reliability of the documents
relied upon by the Petitioners. In these
circumstances, the documents cannot be
treated as conclusive proof of the Petitioners’
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
version merely because they have been
produced in support of their claim.
9.10. The Court is conscious that the absence of
evidence regarding financial capacity, by itself,
does not necessarily establish that a cash
payment was never made. Similarly, an
inconsistency in a document must be assessed
in the context of the other material available. In
the present case, however, the conclusion does
not rest on any single omission or discrepancy.
The discrepancy between the receipt and the
Agreement of Sale regarding payment of the
entire consideration, and the circumstances
surrounding the reference to the Will must be
considered cumulatively. The endorsement
dated 06.02.2024 recording receipt of the
balance amount has also been considered;
however, in the face of the dispute regarding
the transaction and the denial of payment by
Respondent No.2, its existence does not, by
itself, resolve the doubts arising from the other
circumstances on record. The Petitioners have
not placed sufficient material to dispel those
doubts.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
9.11. In the light of the foregoing, the Petitioners
have not demonstrated that the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner suffers from an
infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
The material discrepancies in the documents
and the absence of satisfactory supporting
material regarding the alleged payment provide
a sufficient basis to reject the Petitioners’
contention that the transaction must be
accepted as one supported by the consideration
claimed by them. The Petitioners have
therefore failed to establish a ground for setting
aside the impugned order.
9.12. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered by holding
that the Petitioners have not made out a case
for interference with the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner.
9.13. The circumstances of the present case also
bring into focus the difficulties that may arise
when senior citizens transfer or relinquish
property during their lifetime, particularly in
circumstances where their future financial
security and care may depend upon family
members. Respondent No. 2, stated to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
about 74-75 years old, has approached the
statutory authority and this Court alleging that
the documents relied upon by the Petitioners do
not reflect the true nature of the transaction
and that the alleged consideration was not paid.
The discrepancies discussed above lend weight
to the objections raised by Respondent No. 2. It
is a matter of concern that disputes of this
nature, involving parents and their own
children, should arise in circumstances where
an elderly parent considers it necessary to seek
legal protection for his property and interests.
9.14. At the same time, every transfer of property by
a parent in favour of a child cannot be
presumed to be improper, nor can a family
dispute be viewed with suspicion merely
because of the relationship between the parties.
Each case must be decided on its own facts and
on the material placed before the competent
authority. However, where a senior citizen
alleges that a transfer has left them vulnerable
and the documents relied upon to establish the
transaction contain material and unexplained
inconsistencies, those circumstances warrant
careful scrutiny. The protective purpose of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
Senior Citizens Act must be given due effect,
while ensuring that the rights and contentions
of all parties are considered in accordance with
law.
9.15. The present case also underscores the need for
caution when purchasing property in the names
of children or transferring property to them
during one’s lifetime, particularly where the
property constitutes the principal source of
livelihood, residence or financial security.
Where a senior citizen intends a transfer to be
accompanied by an obligation to provide
maintenance or care, it would be prudent to
record that obligation clearly in the relevant
document and specify, as far as practicable, the
nature of the support expected. The transferor
should also consider whether sufficient property
or financial resources are being retained to
meet future needs. Such precautions may help
reduce the risk of disputes and provide greater
clarity regarding the parties’ respective
obligations.
9.16. The responsibility for preventing such disputes,
however, cannot rest solely upon senior
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
citizens. The circumstances also call for
attention to the manner in which documents
executed by elderly persons are presented for
registration. The registering authorities,
including Sub-Registrars, must discharge their
statutory duties with due diligence and in
accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and
the applicable rules. Within the scope of their
lawful powers and procedures, registering
authorities should take appropriate care to
ensure that an executant understands the
nature and legal effect of the document and
that the applicable registration requirements
are satisfied. Such care is particularly important
where a document involves the transfer or
relinquishment of substantial property of a
senior citizen in favour of close relatives.
9.17. At the same time, the role of a registering
authority must remain within the limits of its
statutory jurisdiction. Registration cannot be
treated as a substitute for an informed and
voluntary decision by the executant; equally, a
registering authority cannot be expected to
adjudicate disputed questions of title or
determine the truth of every allegation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
concerning a family transaction beyond the
powers conferred upon it by law. The objective
should be to ensure compliance with the
applicable legal requirements, to promote
informed execution of documents and to reduce
the possibility of elderly persons being misled
about the consequences of transactions
affecting their property.
9.18. The increasing number of disputes in which
senior citizens allege that they have been
deprived of property or left without adequate
support by members of their own families calls
for serious attention. The responsibility of
children towards their parents is not merely a
matter of family sentiment; the law also
recognises the need to protect the life, dignity
and security of senior citizens. While the
allegations in each case must be tested against
the pleadings and evidence, property
transactions within families should not result in
senior citizens being left without the means
necessary for a dignified life.
9.19. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, provides a statutory
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
framework for the maintenance and welfare of
parents and senior citizens. In view of the
concerns arising in cases of this nature, the
State Government may consider whether the
existing safeguards under the Act are being
effectively implemented and whether further
measures, consistent with the Act and other
applicable laws, are necessary to strengthen
awareness and protection. Such consideration
would fall within the State Government’s
statutory and policy-making functions.
9.20. In particular, the State Government may
consider appropriate measures to create
awareness among senior citizens about the
legal consequences of transferring or
relinquishing property during their lifetime.
Such awareness may address the importance of
understanding the nature and effect of
documents before execution, the desirability of
recording any intended obligation to provide
maintenance or care, the risks of transferring
the principal source of livelihood or security,
and the remedies available under the law if the
transfer results in deprivation of maintenance
or support.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
9.21. The State Government may also examine
whether administrative guidelines, consistent
with the Registration Act, 1908, and the
applicable rules, would assist registering
authorities in dealing with documents executed
by senior citizens, particularly where substantial
property is transferred or relinquished in favour
of close relatives. The objective should be to
promote informed and voluntary execution, to
ensure compliance with applicable registration
requirements and to identify appropriate steps
that may lawfully be taken where genuine
concerns arise regarding an executant’s
understanding or consent.
9.22. The State Government may also consider
whether coordination among registering
authorities, authorities exercising powers under
the Senior Citizens Act and agencies entrusted
with the welfare of senior citizens could
facilitate timely information and assistance in
appropriate cases. Public awareness regarding
maintenance rights, statutory remedies and the
consequences of transferring property during
one’s lifetime may also advance the protective
purpose of the Act. These matters are left to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
the State Government for consideration in
accordance with law and within the scope of its
statutory and policy-making powers.
9.23. The observations in the preceding paragraphs
are intended to draw attention to the broader
concerns that arise when senior citizens
transfer property in circumstances where their
future security may depend upon the support of
family members. They do not alter the
statutory powers or duties of any authority, nor
do they determine any issue beyond what is
necessary for the disposal of the present writ
petition.
9.24. For the reasons discussed above, the
Petitioners have failed to establish that the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
suffers from any infirmity warranting
interference by this Court. Point No. 2 is
accordingly answered against the Petitioners.
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Answer to point No.3: What order?
10.1. In view of the answers of this Court to points
No.1 and 2, this Court passes the following:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58865
WP No. 34895 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010752062025
ORDER
i. No grounds being made out, the petition
stands dismissed.
ii. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in RBANMS Educational
Institution v. B. Gunashekar &
Another [2025 INSC 490], wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed
Courts to refer matters in which a claim
has been made that substantial sums of
cash have been paid, to the Income Tax
Department. The present matter is thus
referred to the Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax Department.
iii. The Registrar (Judicial) shall forward a
copy of the entire file, along with this
order, to the Chief Commissioner, Income
Tax, Karnataka, for such action as may be
deemed necessary in terms of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
RBANMS Educational Institution.
This Court has been assisted by Ms. Harshada R.B, Law
Clerk, in reviewing this judgement.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
17/10/2026, 13:18, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1