SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22956

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
SRI. YASHWANTH. S – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 20289/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20289 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. YASHWANTH. S, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. SHANTHARAM M, RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR, S.L.N. ENTERPRISES, 9TH MAIN ROAD, (LOKESH ROAD), PIPE LINE ROAD, HOSAHALLI BADAVANE, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T REP BY ITS SECRETARY, Location: HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA, COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT OF MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 132.

3. RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, MIDIGESH GRAMA AND HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 133. 4. M. G. RAVIVARMA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, 5. SMT. ANSUYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O. GIRIRAJU. M, 6. M. SHANTHARAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.4, 5 7 6 ARE RESIDENT OF KURUBARA PALYA VILLAGE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 133. 7. SMT. M. G. KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. MARIYANNA. M.B., R/O. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 132.

8. SMT. GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. NAGARAJU. C, R/AT NO.39, PRASHANTH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, ATTUR ROAD, ANANTHAPURA, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

9. SMT. RADHAMANI. M. G.

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O. DEVARAJAIAH, R/O. MAHADESHWARA BADAVANE, MANJANNA LAYOUT, MYLARALINGESHWARA NILAYA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SRI.A C MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3;

SRI.R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R4;

SRI.DEEPAK F K., ADVOCATE FOR R6;

SMT.NANDINI C G., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9;

R5 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED IN MISC.C.R.NO.63/2021- 22 BY THE R2, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

i. To call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Misc.C.R.No.63/2021-22 by the 2nd respondent, produced vide Annexure-A & set aside the same as illegal and bad in law and;

ii. To issue such other writ/s or directions which may deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.3 herein is the grandmother, who has approached the Respondent No.2 alleging that the gift deed that is executed in favour of the petitioner who is the grandson is obtained by fraud and the same has to be set aside. The Respondent No.4 is the son of the Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 & 9 are the daughters of the Respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 is the father of the petitioner and the son of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner who is the grandson on 08.10.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the gifted property and other properties were obtained by the respondent No.3 in a partition dated 01.10.2008 between herself and her son and her two sons. Other than the gifted properties there are properties in the name of the Respondent No. 3. The third respondent, at the behest of the other daughters and son, has approached the Respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the gift deed under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Senior Citizens Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top