IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right of appeal – Section 16 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked only by senior citizen or a parent – Right of appeal under Section 16 of Act is not available to any other party including children or transferees.
(2) Right to Equality – Article 14 prohibits class legislation, but not classification.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – When a statutory provision is ambiguous, interpretative tools can be used to resolve ambiguity.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

K.V. Aravind, J.—Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Puttige R. Ramesh assisted by learned advocate Mr. A. Srikanth for the appellant, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. Ranganath Reddy for respondent No.2.

2. This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, impugning the order in Writ Petition No.3165 of 2024, dated 02.02.2024.

Facts in Brief

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant writ petitioner is the son of late P. Krishna. Respondent No.2 is his sibling. Late P. Krishna executed Gift Deed dated 27.02.2019 in favour of respondent No.2. The property in question is a residential property bearing No.28/1 in Sy.No.17/3 situated at Subbanna Garden, Adugodi Corporation, Ward No.70, Shanthinagar Ward, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 37’6" and North to South 40’. Late P. Krishna filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘Act’) before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, alleging fraudulent gift deed and denial of basic amenities by his son. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.02.2023 allowed the petition by directing to cancel the Gift Deed dated 27.02.2019 and Rectification Deed dated 02.04.2019.

4. Late P. Krishna thereafter bequeathed the property in favour of his second son, K. Lokesh, the petitioner, through a registered Will dated 14.07.2023.

5. Respondent No.2 preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 14.08.2023 by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.02.2023. As late P. Krishna died on 14.07.2023, i.e. during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and his sister were impleaded as legal representatives.

6. The appellant preferred Writ Petition No.18763 of 2023 challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.08.2023. Learned Single Judge set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/appellate authority for fresh consideration.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, on remand, reconsidered the matter and by order dated 24.01.2024 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Further directions were issued to the Sub-Registrar to make necessary entries in the Registers, and concerned authorities were directed to restore the Katha and other documents in the name of respondent No.2.

8. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner preferred Writ Petition No.3165 of 2024. Learned Single Judge by order dated 02.02.2024 set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and permitted the appellant and respondent No.2 to agitate their rights before the competent Court of law.

Submissions

9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Puttige R. Ramesh assisted by learned advocate Mr. A. Srikanth appearing for the appellant made the following submissions.

9.1 The appeal filed by respondent No.2 before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act is not maintainable. The appeal provision under Section 16 of the Act enables only senior citizen or a parent to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.2 is not a senior citizen or a parent in the context of Section 16 of Act.

9.2 Any order passed in an appeal is not sustainable when such an appeal is not maintainable. Learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

9.3 The rights in the property conferred on respondent No.2 through gift deed are not available in view of the gift deed being set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the rights in such property vested with the appellant through a subsequent registered Will dated 14.07.2023.

9.4 The Deputy Commissioner, in the exercise