IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1923 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JYOTHI BASAVARAJ MUNDALAMANE W/O BASAVARAJ AGED 48 YEARS R/O KABBUR VILLAGE HAVERI TQ AND DIST - 581 110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH R. NELKUDURI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. KASHINATH S/O REVANASIDDAPAP AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O KURKI VILLGE Digitally signed by DAVANAGERE TQ AND DISTRICT - 577 001 SUMA B N Location:

HIGH COURT OF 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/

KARNATAKA PRESIDING OFFICER TRIBUNAL OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN AND PARENTS DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001

3. MANJUNATH S/O KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O KURKI VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK DISTRICT - 577 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2 SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF NO.SAM.HI.NA.C.R.NO.25/2020-21. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVANAGERE DTD 27.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-G.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davangere Sub Division, Davangere, in Case No.SAM.HI.NA.CR.No.25/2020-21 filed by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), in which the Assistant Commissioner has by allowing the said petition cancelled the Deed of Gift dated 18.06.2019 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner herein, conveying an extent of one acre of land in Survey No.107/2 and 23 guntas of land in Survey No.157/3 of Kurki Village, Davangere Taluk and District.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to have obtained the aforesaid property in terms of deed of gift dated 18.06.2019 executed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 herein has subsequently filed a petition under the provisions of Section-5 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner herein had fraudulently obtained a deed of gift by fabricating the document and thus the property belongs to the petitioner.

3. The objection statement to the said petition was filed, denying the allegation of fraud and fabrication as alleged. Written arguments were filed.

4. On consideration of the pleading, the respondent / Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order as noted above.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities are cryptic and are not in consonance either with the facts or with the provisions of law. He submits that there is no discussion of any nature whatsoever in the respondent / Assistant Commissioner coming to the conclusion of he being justified in granting the order as sought for. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Deed Of Gift does not contain any condition as contemplated under Section-23 of the Act.

Similarly, there is no pleading either with regard to violation of any such condition. In the absence of the same, he submits that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order cancelling the Deed of Gift.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently submits that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SUDESH CHHIKARA vs. RAMTI DEVI AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, submits that even if there is no express condition in the deed the implied conditions has to be inferred from the pleading of the p