The court emphasized the importance of upholding the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 6/1/2014 passed by respondent No.1 - the Assistant Commissioner, whereby the Assistant Commissioner annuls the Gift Deed that is made in favour of the petitioner executed by one Sri. K.V. Nanjappa.

2. Heard Sri. Amith Xavier C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Usha Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2(a) and Sri. S. Yathiraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2(b).

3. Brief facts, that leads the petitioner, to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner is the son of one Sri. K.V. Nanjappa and respondents Nos.2(a) to 2(f) are either the wife or the other children of K.V. Nanjappa. Sri. K.V. Nanjappa on 28/1/2014, executes a Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner qua the schedule property. The Gift Deed was executed on the condition that the petitioner would permit the father to stay in the house and also take care of him.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner did not take care of the father and he had to leave the house to reside with the elder son one K.N. Prakash. After the father was allegedly driven out of the house by the petitioner, the father registers a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner on 11/11/2014, barely after 9 months after execution of the Gift Deed. The Assistant Commissioner by his order after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner, passes an order on 6/1/2014, annulling the Gift Deed and directing revenue entries to be changed, back to the name of the donor - the father, on the reasons rendered in the order that is passed on 6/1/2014. Though the order is passed on 6/1/2014, the writ petition is preferred on 12/2/2020, close to 6 years after the passage of the said order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Amith Xavier C., would contend that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have issued notices to all the members of the family, hear all of them and then pass orders; the Gift Deed though contained a condition that he would take care, he had never shown any disregard to such conditions, it was the father on his own volition, moved out of the house and began to stay with K.N. Prakash, his elder son. It is at his insistence, the complaint was filed before the authorities. He would submit that even now if all the members of the family would come together, the issue can be resolved.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2(a), Smt. Usha Prakash would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the Gift Deed did contain a condition that he would take care and he has neglected the father and therefore, the complaint was maintainable and the complaint is rightly answered by the Assistant Commissioner. The learned counsel would submit that though the order is passed 6 years ago, it is challenged only to harass the respondents, as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is already implemented, she would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. One Sri. K.V. Nanjappa, father of the present petitioner, husband of respondent No.2(c), and the father of respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) and 2(f) executes a Gift Deed on 28/1/2014. Since the entire issue now springs from the Gift Deed, conditions stipulated in the Gift Deed becomes germane to be noticed and it reads as follows:

The Gift Deed is unequivocal, in observing that the property is gifted to the petitioner on the condition that he was taking care of the donor, at that point in time and shall also take care of the father throughout his lifetime. The condition being breeched, allegedly, a complaint comes to be registered before the Assistant Commissioner, barely after 9 months, after re