SRI. SANNEGOWDA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 28559 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.
SRI. SANNEGOWDA
S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

2. SRI. MAMATHA
W/O SRI. SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT
C/O SRI SRINIVAS
BEHIND KSRTC BUS DEPOT
RAMANATHPURA
RAMANATHPURA HOBLI
ARAKULUGUDU TQ
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 133
…PETITIONERS











Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RANJAN RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE
OF SENIOR CITIZENS ACT
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION
SAKALESHPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127

3. SRI. H. KALLEGOWDA
S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA
DHUMMU GRAMA
DODDAMUGGI HOBLI
ARAKULUGUDU TQ
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. H.R. SHRIDHARA MURTHY ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD
11.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN CASE
MEG(HINARA/28/2023-24) AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court challenging the
order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-
Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Authority under
the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Parents and

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for
short) at Annexure-C.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that they have purchased the land measuring
35 guntas from the respondent No.3 through a registered
sale deed dated 01.03.2021, which is produced as
Annexure-A. The purchase of the said property was for
sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. The respondent No.3
has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- under the
sale deed. The respondent No.3 herein is the senior uncle
of petitioner No.2. When things stood thus, the respondent
No.3 had approached the respondent No.2 invoking the
provisions of Section 23 of the Act requesting for
annulment of the sale deed dated 01.03.2021 executed by
him in favour of the petitioners herein on the ground that
the petitioners have obtained the registration of sale deed
by playing fraud and misrepresentation and the
respondent No.3 had executed the sale deed in view of the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



assurance of the petitioners that they would take care of
the respondent No.3 during his entire lifetime.
3. The Assistant Commissioner has rejected the
appeal on the ground that the property was conveyed
through a registered sale deed and therefore, in exercise
of power under Section 23 of the Act, the sale deed cannot
be annulled. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, the respondent No.3 had
approached the respondent No.2 invoking the provisions of
Sections 16 and 23 of the Act. The respondent No.1-
Deputy Commissioner holds that the sale deed executed
by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners cannot be
cancelled and the said relief can only be obtained at the
hands of the jurisdictional Civil Court. However, invoking
the powers under Section 9(2) of the Act directed the
petitioners herein to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per
month to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 has
also observed that insofar as the annulment of the sale

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



deed is concerned, the respondent No.3 is required to
approach the competent Civil Court.
4. The instant writ petition is filed by the
petitioners being aggrieved by the direction issued by the
respondent No.1 for payment of maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.3.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submit that the direction issued by the
respondent No.1 for payment of maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent No.3 is without
authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
In as much as, there is no obligation on the part of the
petitioners to pay any maintenance in favour of the
respondent No.3, since the respondent No.3 is the senior
uncle of the petitioners and would not come within the
definition “ relative” in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act.
Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that
the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.3, however, submits that the
petitioners have obtained the sale deed at Annexure-A
from the respondent No.3 with the assurance of they
maintaining and taking care of the respondent No.3 during
his lifetime. However, after the execution of the sale deed,
the petitioners have refused to take care of the respondent
No.3. It is in the said circumstances, the respondent No. 3
had to approach the respondent No.2 for the annulment of
the registered instrument. Though, the respondent No.2-
Assistant Commissioner has rejected the petition filed by
the respondent No.3, however, the Deputy Commissioner
in an appeal filed by the respondent No.3 has directed
payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners
to the respondent No.3. Therefore, prays for dismissal of
the writ petition.
7. After having heard the learned counsel hearing
for the petitioners and learned counsel of the respondent
No.3 and on perusal of the averments made in the writ

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



petition, so also the orders passed by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, it is clear that the sale deed dated
01.03.2021 executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the
petitioners is for the sale consideration and the payment of
sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- is acknowledged while
executing the sale deed. Though, the sale deed was
executed on 01.03.2021, even assuming that the
petitioners have obtained the said sale deed by
misrepresentation or by playing fraud, the respondent
No.3 has not challenged the same till 2023. However, only
in the year 2023, he had approached the respondent No.2
for annulment of the sale deed, which has been rightly
rejected by the respondent No.2.
8. The respondent No.1 in an appeal filed by the
respondent No.3, though, declined to exercise the power
to annul the registered sale deed rightly holding that it had
no jurisdiction to pass that kind of a declaratory direction,
yet proceeded to exercise the power under Section 9(2) of
the Act and directed the petitioners to pay maintenance of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



Rs.10,000/- p.m. In the light of the fact that the
respondent No.3 is the senior uncle of petitioner No.2,
there is no legal obligation on the petitioners to maintain
or take care of respondent No.3 or payment of
maintenance as directed by respondent No.1. The
relationship between the petitioner No.2 and respondent
No.3 does not come within the definition of either “ parent"
or "relative ”. Therefore, the order passed by the
respondent No.1 directing the petitioners to pay
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m., is without jurisdiction
and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
9. In the light of the above, the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained
and required to be set at naught.
10. In the result,
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the
respondent No.1 in proceedings

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61329
WP No. 28559 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010604392024



No.MAG(HiNaRa/28/2023-24 at Annexure-C is
hereby quashed.
(iii) However, the order passed in this writ petition
would not come in the way of the respondent
No.3 initiating any other legal proceedings in
accordance with law as against the petitioners
herein insofar as adjudication of his alleged
claim that the sale deed was obtained by the
petitioners by playing fraud or
misrepresentation.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE

PB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52