SMT DEEPA W/O SHRIKANT KANCHAGAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024
R


CNR: KAHC020149292024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 105321 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:

SMT. DEEPA W/O. SHRIKANT KANCHAGAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. MARKET ROAD, GARAG VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-581105.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SADIK KANVI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY IT’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND CHAIRMAN OF MAINTENANCE
AND WELFARE OF THE SENIOR CITIZEN
PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD-580 001.

3. SMT. SULOCHANA
W/O. SHIVARAYAPPA KANCHAGAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ND
R/O. H.NO.21/1, 2 MAIN,
RD
3 CROSS, VASA LAYOUT,
KALYAN NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580 007.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


4. SMT. SHRUTI W/O. VINAYAK KANCHAGAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MARKET ROAD, GARAG VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-581 105.

5. THE TAHASILDAR, DHARWAD,
OFFICE AT: TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE COMPLEX, DHARWAD,
PIN CODE-580001.

6. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GARAG VILLAGE, OFFICE AT: PDO,
GARAG VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-581
105.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R5;
SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3;
SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE MAINTENANCE AND
WELFARE OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS PROTECTION TRIBUNAL,
DHARWAD, IN NO.MWPSCA/ CR/ 36/ 2023-24 AND RS
NO.151300102400102339 DATED 02-07-2024, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
1. The captioned writ petition is directed against the
order passed by the respondent No.2–Senior Citizens
Maintenance Tribunal, whereby, while purporting to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for
short, ‘the Act, 2007’), the Tribunal has granted police
protection in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the said order, has invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, contending that the
Tribunal has acted wholly without jurisdiction and has
granted a relief dehors the provisions of the Act, 2007.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, and the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


material placed on record, including the original
proceedings of the Tribunal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and on careful examination of the
records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.2–Tribunal
cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order suffers
from a patent lack of jurisdiction as well as an erroneous
exercise of powers not vested in the Tribunal under the
provisions of the Act, 2007. The order is liable to be
interfered with on more than one ground.
4. The first and foremost ground goes to the very
root of the matter. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the
Act, 2007 can be invoked only by a “Senior Citizen” or a
“Parent” as contemplated under the Act, 2007. Insofar as
proceedings under Section 23 are concerned, the applicant
must necessarily satisfy the statutory requirements
prescribed under the Act, 2007. The application filed by

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


respondent No.3 under Section 23 of the Act, 2007
produced at Annexure–A, discloses that she was aged 55
years on the date of presentation of the application.
5. The Act, 2007 received the assent of the
President after its enactment as Act No.56 of 2007. Section
2(h) of the Act defines a “Senior Citizen” to mean a citizen
of India who has attained the age of sixty years or above.
The definition is explicit and admits of no exception. The
attainment of sixty years is not merely a procedural
requirement but constitutes a jurisdictional fact upon the
existence of which alone the Tribunal derives authority to
entertain an application under the Act, 2007.
6. The application at Annexure–A unequivocally
discloses that respondent No.3 had described herself as
being aged 55 years. Even in the plaint filed by respondent
No.3 along with her daughter in O.S.No.30/2023, she is
shown to be aged about 58 years. Therefore, irrespective of
the pleadings relied upon, respondent No.3 had admittedly

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


not attained the age prescribed under Section 2(h) of the
Act, 2007 on the date she invoked the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has failed to advert to this
foundational jurisdictional requirement before entertaining
the application. Once the applicant herself did not answer
the description of a “Senior Citizen” within the meaning of
the Act, 2007 the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to
entertain the proceedings. The failure to ascertain this
jurisdictional fact vitiates the entire proceedings.
7. Even assuming that respondent No.3 was
entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act, 2007 this Court
finds that the application itself did not disclose a cause of
action falling within the ambit of Section 23. The jurisdiction
conferred on the Tribunal under Section 23 is neither
plenary nor akin to that exercised by a Civil Court. The
Tribunal is a statutory forum created for a limited purpose
and is bound to act strictly within the four corners of the
statute. It cannot assume unto itself the powers of a Civil

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


Court nor adjudicate disputes relating to title, ownership,
succession or validity of conveyances except to the limited
extent expressly permitted by Section 23 of the Act, 2007.
8. Section 23 contemplates a specific class of
transfers. It enables the Tribunal to declare a transfer of
property as void only where a senior citizen has transferred
his or her property by way of gift or otherwise subject to
the condition that the transferee shall provide basic
amenities and physical needs to the transferor and the
transferee has refused or failed to honour such obligation.
Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 23 is conditional and
can be exercised only when the statutory ingredients
coexist. Unless the transfer emanates from the senior
citizen himself or herself and such transfer is conditional
upon maintenance, the question of invoking Section 23
would not arise.
9. In the present case, respondent No.3 is
admittedly not the executant of the gift deeds sought to be

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


questioned. The transfers were effected by her husband in
favour of his sons. The application does not disclose that
respondent No.3 had transferred any property belonging to
her subject to a condition that the transferees would
maintain her. There is also no pleading attracting the
statutory fiction contemplated under Section 23. The entire
grievance projected in the application is directed against the
gift deeds executed by her husband. Such a dispute does
not fall within the limited jurisdiction conferred on the
Tribunal under Section 23.
10. It would be apposite to extract paragraph 16 of
the application, wherein respondent No.3 has sought the
following relief:
“16. The sons two in number, soon after the
death of my husband on 15.03.2018, forcefully by
perpetuating physical violence, fraud receipt,
coercion and under life threat by bringing 15-20
gonda people obtained signature under duress.
Hence, these transactions of properties alienating to
my two sons be please be declared as null and void
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007.”

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


11. A plain reading of the above prayer leaves no
manner of doubt that respondent No.3 sought only a
declaration that the gift deeds executed by her husband in
favour of their sons be declared null and void. The
application was, therefore, essentially directed against the
validity of transfers executed by a third party. Such a relief
does not fall within the statutory framework of Section 23.
The Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the Act, 2007 is
not competent to adjudicate upon the legality or otherwise
of conveyances executed by persons other than the
applicant nor can it decide rival claims of title arising
therefrom.
12. The records further indicate that respondent
No.3 along with her daughter has already instituted
O.S.No.30/2023 seeking partition and separate possession.
It would be useful to extract the relevant prayer in
paragraph 18 of the plaint, which reads thus:
“18. Prayer:
It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kindly:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


a. Declare that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled
for 1/4” shares each in the entire suit schedule
property A and B except property bearing SY.
No.571/4 (schedule property A (2) and draw
preliminary decree in favor of plaintiff no.1 and
2.
b. That the sale deed executed by defendant No.1
in favor defendant No.6 to 8 bearing Sy.
No.24/3 situated at Garag Village is not binding
to the share of the plaintiffs.
c. The registered Gift deed executed by late
Shivarayappa dated 04/11/2009 in the name of
defendant No.3 husband bearing gram
Panchayat property No.244 situated at Garag is
to be declared as not binding to the share of
the plaintiffs.
d. The registered relinquishment deed dated
3/06/2020 in the name of defendant No.2
husband bearing Gram Panchayat property
No.244 situated at Garag Village is to be
declared as not binding to the share of the
plaintiffs.
e. The registered relinquishment deed dated
3/06/2020 in the name of defendant No.3
husband bearing gram Panchayat property

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


No.229 situated at Garag Village is to be
declared as not binding to the share of the
plaintiffs.
f. The Resolution passed by Gram Panchayat
Garag dated 10/06/2019 in Tarav No.06 is
declared as illegal and void and the plaintiffs
are entitled to equal share in the property.
g. The partition may please be effected in the suit
schedule property A and B by metes and bound
through revenue officers with separate
possession in respect of suit schedule property
and partition may be effected by appointing
court commissioner.
h. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 be permitted to amend
the plaint as and when necessary.
i. That Hon’ble court be pleased to award mesne
profit along with interest to the plaintiffs No.1
and 2 in the above suit property.
j. That the Hon’ble court kindly pass decree In
favor of plaintiffs by way permanent injunction
restrained the defendants not to alienate the
property in the above suit.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


k. Any other relief deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case be passed. A decree
in terms of above be passed.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The aforesaid prayer unmistakably demonstrates
that respondent No.3 has already challenged the gift deed
dated 04.11.2009 executed by late Shivarayappa and has
sought a declaration that the said gift deed is not binding
upon her alleged share. Thus, the controversy between the
parties squarely revolves around proprietary rights, validity
of registered documents, succession and partition.
14. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint
family properties; whether late Shivarayappa possessed
absolute authority to execute the gift deeds; whether
respondent No.3 has any independent proprietary interest
therein; whether the gift deeds are vitiated by fraud,
coercion or undue influence; and whether the said
transactions are binding upon respondent No.3 are all
complicated and disputed questions of fact requiring

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


detailed evidence. Such questions cannot be adjudicated in
summary proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under
the Act,2007. These issues lie exclusively within the
province of the competent Civil Court.
15. The Civil Court is already seized of the aforesaid
questions. Once respondent No.3 has invoked the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court seeking comprehensive
declaratory and consequential reliefs, she could not have
simultaneously invoked Section 23 of the Act, 2007 seeking
substantially the very same relief before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal cannot be permitted to exercise jurisdiction parallel
to that of the Civil Court in matters involving adjudication of
title and proprietary rights.
16. There is yet another aspect which goes to the
root of the matter. Though the only relief sought in the
application was to declare the gift deeds as null and void,
the Tribunal has proceeded to grant police protection. The
impugned order, therefore, travels completely beyond the

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


pleadings and the relief sought in the application. It is trite
that no adjudicatory authority can grant a relief which has
neither been pleaded nor prayed for. Such an exercise is
clearly beyond jurisdiction.
17. More importantly, the Act, 2007 does not confer
any independent power upon the Tribunal while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 23 to direct police protection in a
dispute essentially concerning title to immovable property.
Allegations of harassment or threat, even if assumed to be
true, cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal beyond
the powers expressly conferred by the statute. Such
grievances are required to be addressed before the
competent authorities under the appropriate legal
framework and cannot be converted into proceedings under
Section 23.
18. Viewed from any angle, therefore, the Tribunal
has acted wholly without jurisdiction. The applicant did not
satisfy the statutory requirement of being a senior citizen;

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


the application itself did not disclose the ingredients
necessary to invoke Section 23; the dispute raised pertains
to adjudication of title and validity of gift deeds executed by
the husband of respondent No.3; identical issues are
already pending before the competent Civil Court; and
finally, the Tribunal has granted a relief completely dehors
the pleadings. Each of these grounds independently renders
the impugned order unsustainable. Collectively, they leave
no manner of doubt that the impugned order suffers from
patent lack of jurisdiction and material irregularity
warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.

19. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be
permitted to stand. The rights of respondent No.3, if any,
shall necessarily abide by the adjudication in O.S. No.30 of
2023, wherein all questions relating to title, validity of the
gift deeds, proprietary rights and consequential reliefs shall
be decided on their own merits without being influenced by

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


any observation contained in the proceedings before the
Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following;
ORDER
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 passed
by respondent No.2 – the Assistant
Commissioner and Chairman of the
Maintenance and Welfare of the Senior Citizens
Protection Tribunal, Dharwad in No. MWPSCA/
CR/ 36/ 2023-24 as per Annexure-C is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to respondent No.3 to
prosecute the pending civil suit in O.S. No.30
of 2023 and to work out all such rights and
remedies as may be available to her in law
before the competent Civil Court.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9984
WP No. 105321 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020149292024


rival claims relating to title, succession or
validity of the gift deeds, all of which shall be
adjudicated independently by the Civil Court in
accordance with law.



Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE


VNP / CT: BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5