THIS

DAY,

B.VEERAPPA

J.,

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The present Intra Court Appeal is filed by the appellant

against the impugned order, dated 26.2.2019, passed in Writ

Petition No.52010/2016 by the learned Single Judge of this Court

allowing the writ petition filed by one Sri M.B. Nagaraju/respondent

No.3 herein and quashing the order, dated 20.8.2016, passed by

the Assistant Commissioner with an observation that the appellant

3

herein shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may

be available to him under the law.

2. It is the case of the 3^rd respondent, who is the petitioner

before the learned Single Judge that he had purchased a property

bearing Municipal Assessment No.3327/3081 measuring East to

West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet situated at K.R.S.

Agrahara, Ward No.22, Kunigal Town under a registered Sale Deed,

dated 1.12.2006, in the name of the appellant/Nanjappa with a

condition that the same has to be re-conveyed in his name (3^rd

respondent) and the entire sale consideration was paid by the 3^rd

respondent. Thereafter, the appellant/Nanjappa herein executed a

registered Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, in favour of the 3^rd

respondent/M.B. Nagaraju in respect of the said property clearly

mentioning in the Gift Deed that the entire sale consideration is

paid by the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter on 25.2.2016, the

appellant/Nanjappa filed an application before the Assistant

Commissioner for a declaration that the Gift Deed is null and void

and in turn, the Assistant Commissioner by the order, dated

20.8.2016,

allowed

the

application

filed

by

the

present

4

appellant/Nanjappa, who was the 3^rd respondent before the

learned Single Judge and cancelled the registered Gift Deed, dated

23.2.2011, with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, to re-

register the right in respect of the said property in favour of

present appellant/Nanjappa, which was challenged by the 3^rd

respondent/M.B.

Nagaraju

by

filing

a

writ

petition

i.e.,

W.P.No.52010/2016 before this Court for the relief sought for.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both

parties and considering the material on record by the impugned

order, dated 26^th February, 2019 allowed the writ petition and

quashed the order, dated 20^th August, 2016 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner holding that the Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, does

not contain any such stipulation that the transferee shall maintain

the Senior Citizen. However, it was observed that the present

appellant/Nanjappa would be at liberty to take recourse to such

remedy as may be available to him under the law. Hence, the

present Intra Court Appeal is filed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the

lis.

5

5. Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the 3^rd

respondent cannot be sustained and hence, is liable to be set

aside. He would further contend that the impugned order is neither

correct nor maintainable on the ground that Sub-sections (1) and

(2) of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Senior Citizens Act’) are applicable to the facts and circumstances

of the case. He would further contend that the learned Single

Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the ‘Act’ in question

was framed with a view to provide maintenance and welfare of the

parents and the senior citizen which is directly recognized and

guaranteed under the Constitution of India and all matters

incidental thereto. Further to ensure the life, the property of the

senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with security

and dignity. Thus the act recognises the vulnerable position of the

senior citizen in the present society and intends to provide

mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life a