SMT BHAGYA @ BHAGYAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO.35738 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BHAGYA @ BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.3/302
JEEVA NAGAR, CHOODAPURAM
BELATHUR, HOSUR TALUK-635 124
KRISHNAGARI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU

PREVIOUS RESIDING AT
KHAJISONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KANNAMANGALA POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGLAURU EAST TALUK-560 067
BENGALURU DURGBAN DISTRICT
…PETITIONER











Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI: BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU

2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PRESIDENT OF MAINTENANCE AND

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
SENIOR CITIZENS ACT
MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 009
BENGALURU URBAN DISTARICT

3. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RD
R/AT 3 CROSS, KANNAMANGALAL
KHAJI SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALRUU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 067

4. SRI. SWAMYNATHAN
S/O MUNIKADARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT KHAJI SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KANNAMANGALAL POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALRUU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 067

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESETNED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 IN CASE BEARING MSC/CR/45/2024
PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU
NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU / R2 AS FOUND AT ANN-A
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the
order dated 30.07.2024 passed by respondent No.2 at
Annexure-A in the proceedings under the provisions of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “2007, Act” for
short). The said proceedings was initiated by respondent
No.3 seeking annulment of the gift deed dated 23.07.2008
executed by Smt.Puttamma in favour of her son
Venkatesh who is the husband of the petitioner herein.
2. Background of the litigation as stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that Smt.Puttamma
wife of Chowdappa was issued with the Hakku Pathra on
15.08.1975 by the Tahsildar in respect of house property
No.15 in Survey No.5 of Khaji Sonnenahalli Village,
Hosakote Taluk, Smt.Puttamma during her life time had
executed the gift deed in favour of husband of the
petitioner herein namely Venkatesh. Venkatesh died on

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



01.07.2012. Till his death he was in possession of the
property in question. Smt.Puttamma died on 09.02.2021.
During her life time, Smt.Puttamma did not made any
claim in respect of the property, which was gifted to her
son Venkatesh and after the demise of Venkatesh, the
petitioner continued to enjoy the property as owner and
continued to be in possession of the same.
3. When things stood thus, after the demise of
Smt.Puttamma, respondent No.3 herein approached
respondent No.2 invoking the provisions of Section 23 of
2007, Act, contending that, though Smt.Puttamma during
her life time had executed the gift deed dated 23.07.2008
in favour of her son Venkatesh, the said Venkatesh is the
foster son of respondent No.3 and after the death of
Venkatesh, the petitioner herein who has succeeded to the
property in question is not taking care of respondent No.3
and therefore, the gift deed dated 01.07.2012 requires to
be annulled as void in exercise of power under Section 23
of 2007, Act.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



4. It is the contention of respondent No.3 before
respondent No.2 that she is the relative as defined under
Section 2(g) of 2007, Act and she is entitled for
maintenance at the hands of the petitioner who is the wife
of Venkatesh and who is the beneficiary of the gift deed
executed by Smt.Puttamma. Respondent No.2, without
noticing the relevant provisions of the Act and the
ownership of the property in question prior to execution of
the gift deed and after execution of the gift deed and also
not noticing the relationship between the petitioner and
respondent No.3 has blindly passed the impugned order
cancelling the gift deed dated 23.07.2008 and granted
other consequential relief. The said order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that pursuant to the impugned order passed by
respondent No.2, the same has been entered into in the
concerned register of the Sub-registrar and taking
advantage of the same, respondent No.3 has executed an

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



absolute sale deed dated 26.11.2024 in favour of
respondent No.4 herein. The conduct of respondent No.3
in executing the sale deed in favour of respondent No.4
immediately after passing of the impugned order discloses
the modus operandi of respondent No.3 in approaching
respondent No.2 and obtaining the order.
6. It is the further submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings before
respondent No.2 was ever received by the petitioner.
However, respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the
impugned order recording that the petitioner has refused
to accept the notice.
7. In the present writ petition, despite service of
notice, respondent Nos.3 and 4 chosen not to represent.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner, so also the learned HCGP appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



is without application of mind and contrary to the
provisions of 2007, Act. Respondent No.2-Assistant
Commissioner has not even ascertained the relationship of
the parties before him.
9. As contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, respondent No.3-Smt.Venkatamma is the sister
of Smt.Puttamma who is the mother of Venkatesh. After
the death of Venkatesh on 01.07.2012 Smt.Puttamma who
had executed the gift deed in favour of Venkatesh was
alive till 09.02.2021 and she has not raised any objection
with regard to the maintenance or otherwise by the
petitioner herein. It is after the death of Smt.Puttamma,
her sister Smt.Venkatamma i.e., respondent No.3 has
approached respondent No.2. The relationship between
the petitioner and respondent does not come within the
relative
definition of “ ” as defined under Section 2(g) of
2007, Act. Without ascertaining the relationship of the
parties and without ascertaining the title documents of the
property in question, respondent No.2 has proceeded to

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



pass the impugned order, which is wholly illegal and
contrary to the provisions of 2007, Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.12878/2026 and contends that the
petition filed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2
was not maintainable and consequently, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
cannot be sustained, since the same being in violation of
the provisions of 2007, Act, so also the judgment passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.12878/2026 dated 20.08.2026.
12. In view of the fact that pursuant to the
impugned order, the entries have been made in the
register of the jurisdictional Sub-registrar and based on
the said entry as per Annexure-A1, respondent No.3 has
conveyed the property in question in favour of respondent

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



No.4 appropriate directions will have to be issued to
restore back the position as stood prior to the impugned
order.
13. In the result:
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
(iii) In the light of the fact that this Court has held that
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner-
respondent No.2 is illegal and quashed by this order,
the entry made before the Sub-registrar as per
Annexure-A1 is also quashed.
(iv) The petitioner is permitted to produce the certified
copy of this order before the jurisdictional Sub-
registrar and seek restoration of the registered
entries pursuant to registered document No.BDH-1-
01057-2008-09 Book No.1, stored in CD.No.BDHD15
in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore.
(v) It is further held that in the light of quashing of the
impugned order, the execution of sale deed by
respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 is of

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58819
WP No. 35738 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010762202024



no consequences and based on the sale deed dated
26.11.2024 executed by respondent No.3 in favour
of respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 has not
deprived any right, title and interest in the said
property.
(vi) If the petitioner produces the certified copy of this
order before the jurisdictional Panchayath, the said
Panchayath is also directed to restore the katha in
the name of the petitioner as was prior to the
passing of the impugned order.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE



PB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47