NARASIMHAMURTHY N vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NARASIMHAMURTHY N
BIN NARASIMHAPPA @
DODDANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. ANJINAMMA @ ANASUYA
D/O NARASIMHAPPA
@ DODDANARASIMHAPPA
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. GANGAMMA,
D/O NARASIMHAPPA
@ DODDANARASIMHAPPA
W/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MANCHENAHALLI
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
…APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
2. THE SUB REGISTRAR,
GOWRI BIDANUR (T)
GOWRIBIDANUR – 561 208
3.
THE TAHSILDAR
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
NOW MANCHENAHALLI TALUK
MANCHENAHALLI – 561 208
4. SRI M.A. LOKESHA
S/O ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
5. SRI M.A. HARISHA
S/O ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 ARE
R/AT THALAVARA PETE
MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE
MANCHENAHALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR – 561 211
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3;
SRI THIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & 5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. No.4191/2025 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
SUITABLE RELIEFS AS THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT MAY DEEMS
FIT TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEFS AS THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER TO GRANT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the
application I.A.No.1/2025 filed for condonation of delay, the same
is allowed and the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 17.02.2025 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.4191/2025 (GM-RES).
4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed the said petition
challenging the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura
under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [ the Act ] canceling the registered Gift
Deed dated 13.03.2017 executed in their favour.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
5. The learned Single Judge had allowed the said prayer on two
grounds. First, that a petition filed by Sri. Narasimhappa alias
Dodda Narasimhappa [ Senior Citizen ] did not contain any such
prayer and second, the gift deed did not contain any covenant or
condition to the effect that the donee would provide basic amenities
and basic physical needs to the Senior Citizen. According to the
learned Single Judge, the gift deed necessarily required recording
such a condition for the Senior Citizen to avail the benefit of
Section 23 of the Act. The learned Single Judge also referred to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti
1
Devi , in support of the said decision.
6. Briefly stated the relevant facts to address the present
appeal are as under:
The appellants state that their grandfather, Sri Neeraganti
Anjinappa was the owner and in possession of the property; the
details of the subject property are described as under:
"All that piece and parcel of Manchenahalli Village
E-Property No. 152800402400120744, coming
within the limits of Manchenahalli Village
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
Panchayath, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur
Taluk, Chikkaballapura District bearing property no
(as per Panchayat Documents) 870/A (Eight
Hundred and Seventy bar A) measuring East to
West: 5.33 (Five Point Three Three) mtrs, North to
South: 13.10 (Thirteen Point One Zero) total site
measuring 40.00 (Forty) sq.mtrs and 29.82
(Twenty Nine point Eight Two) square mtrs
inclusive of building bounded on:
East by : Village Panchayath Road
West by: Gopalashetty's house
South by : Village Panchayath Road
North by: Nirmaladevi's house.
The property situated amidst measuring 69.82
(Sixty Nine Point Eight Two) square meters being
vacant site and a residential house is subject to
this Gift Deed. There has been no prohibitory
order by any court restricting alienation of the said
vacant site and house and accordingly executed
this Gift Deed.
Witnesses:
1) Sd/-
Sd/-
Donor
2) Sd/-
Donees
Sd/-
Sd/-"
7. The subject property was inherited by the Senior Citizen,
who was the son of Sri Neeraganti Anjinappa. The Senior Citizen
expired on 21.04.2024 and was survived by four children and
grandchildren. He had executed a gift deed dated 13.03.2017
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
gifting the subject property to respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the
sons of one of his sons, Sri Ashwathappa.
8. After the aforementioned gift deed was executed, on
31.10.2022, the Senior Citizen filed a petition (MSC. Cr.
No.13/2022-23) before the Assistant Commissioner under Section
23 of the Act. He stated that he was 83 years old and was not in a
position to understand what was going on. He stated that he was
unable to move from one place to another without assistance as he
was living alone. He claimed that respondent Nos. 4 and 5
deceived him into believing they would obtain a Senior Citizenship
Certificate, which would entitle him to certain government benefits.
He claimed that, being misled by the said representation, he had
put his signatures on some papers and had also accompanied
respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the Registrar's Office, Bagepalli, where
his signatures were obtained, and his photographs were also
taken. He claimed that he was informed that the said signatures
were necessary to get the facilities from the Government. He
alleged that believing his grandsons (respondent Nos.4 and 5), he
acted on their instructions.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
9. The Senior Citizen claimed that subsequently, respondent
Nos.4 and 5 started acting detrimentally to his interest.
Subsequently, he became aware that the said respondents had
obtained the registered gift deed of the subject property and, on
that basis, were attempting to alienate the subject property.
10. In the given facts, the Senior Citizen prayed that the
Assistant Commissioner declare the registered gift deed dated
13.03.2017 to be null and void.
11. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 03.03.2023.
The said order was impugned by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the
writ petition (W.P.No.4191/2025), which was filed after the Senior
Citizen expired on 21.04.2024. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (writ
petitioners) claimed that they had become aware of the Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 03.03.2023 only recently.
12. As noted above, the impugned order is premised on the
basis that the petition filed by the Senior Citizen did not contain the
prayer for cancellation of the gift deed. However, we note that the
said petition included a prayer to declare the gift deed null and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
void. Although the petition also mentioned that respondent Nos. 4
and 5 (donees) had misrepresented that they would look after the
Senior Citizen, it was not premised on that basis. As noted above,
the petition was premised on the basis that the Senior Citizen had
executed the gift deed on a fraudulent representation that he was
signing documents for availing Senior Citizen's benefit from the
Government.
13. Section 23 of the Act is relevant and is set out below:
" 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 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."
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
14. A plain reading of Section 23(1) of the Act indicates that it
contemplates a case where a gift deed is executed, subject to the
condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and
basic physical needs.
15. As noted above, the condition specified under Section 23(1)
of the Act is not satisfied. Thus, stricto sensu, Section 23(1) of the
Act may not apply. Notwithstanding the same, the Assistant
Commissioner may in a given set of circumstances have the power
to pass orders for the protection of the Senior Citizen's properties.
However, it is not necessary to examine the same in these
proceedings.
16. The Senior Citizen's petition proceeded ex parte .
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not participate in the said proceedings
at that stage, and they were unaware of the same.
17. In view of the above, the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner cannot be sustained. The same is liable to be set
aside.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
18. Before concluding, it would be apposite to refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi
( supra ). The Supreme Court referred to Section 23 of the Act and
held as under:
"14. 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 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
the transferees (the daughters 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.
17. We have perused the counter-affidavit filed by
Respondent 1. Even in the counter, it is not pleaded that
the release was subject to such a condition. It is merely
pleaded that the appellant had no intention to take care of
her mother. Thus, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal
cannot be sustained as the twin conditions incorporated in
sub-section (1) of Section 23 were not satisfied.
Unfortunately, the High Court has not adverted to the
merits of the case at all.”
19. It is clear from the above that the Senior Citizen seeking
cancellation of a gift deed under Section 23(1) of the Act has to
establish that the gift deed was executed on the condition that the
transferee will take care of the basic needs of the Senior Citizen.
However, it is not necessary that the same would be expressly
recorded in the gift deed. The Senior Citizen would have to
establish the same by providing sufficient evidence in that regard.
In Sudesh Chikkara ( supra ), the Supreme Court found that the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
applicant had nether pleaded that the transfer of the property was
on an understanding that the transferee shall provide the basic
amenities and physical needs to the applicant nor had led any
evidence to the said effect. It is important to note that the Supreme
Court did not hold that the conveyance deed must contain such
covenant.
20. In view of the above, although we are unable to concur with
the two grounds on which the learned Single Judge had allowed
the petition, the conclusion to set aside the gift deed cannot be
faulted, as the Senior Citizen's claim does not fall squarely within
Section 23(1) of the Act.
21. This Court has been informed that the appellants are family
members and have filed a suit being (O.S.No.355/2022) on
22.08.2022 (which is prior to the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner) for partition of the subject property and the said suit
is pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Gowribidanur.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60916-DB
WA No. 1008 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010409272025
22. In this regard, we clarify that all rights and contentions of the
parties regarding the gift deed, including whether the same was
executed fraudulently are reserved. Neither the order dated
03.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Chikkaballapura nor the orders passed by this Court would
preclude the parties from agitating the said issue in the said civil
proceedings.
23. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
24. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
KPS,
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11