Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24272

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Lalitha Kanneganti, J
B.Y. Santosh Raj Urs – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division and Chairman, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27088 of 2019 (GM-RES)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. N Gowtham Raghunath
For the Respondents: Sri. Mahantesh Shettar (AGA for R1), Sri. B Yellappa (R2 in person), R3 served

The judgment establishes that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 requires an explicit condition in the gift deed obligating the donee to provide basic amenities, and without such condition, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to cancel the gift.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Transfer of property - Gift deed - Cancellation - Condition of providing basic amenities - Essential requirement - The provision requires that transfer must be subject to condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs - If no such condition in deed, Section 23 cannot be invoked - Law laid down by Supreme Court is binding and cannot be deviated by High Court or co-ordinate bench. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Writ petition - Certiorari - Scope - Interference with order of Tribunal - Order set aside when Tribunal exceeds jurisdiction or fails to follow statutory conditions. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner (son) challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Tribunal) cancelling a gift deed executed by his father (respondent No.2) in his favour. The father alleged harassment and neglect by the son and sought cancellation under Section 23 of the Act. The son contended that the gift deed did not contain any condition requiring him to maintain the father, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel it.

Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, and left it open to the father to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether Section 23 of the Act requires an explicit condition in the gift deed obligating the donee to maintain the donor, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to cancel the gift deed in absence of such condition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit has held that for Section 23(1) to apply, the transfer must be subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs. In absence of such condition in the gift deed, the transfer cannot be declared void. The contrary interpretation by the Madras High Court and co-ordinate bench of this Court cannot be followed, being against the binding law of the land.

Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the Assistant Commissioner set aside.

Table of Content
1. facts and background of the case, including the gift deed and allegations of harassment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments of parties regarding the applicability of section 23 of the act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of section 23 and the binding precedent of the supreme court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer.

“Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-

a. Call for the entire records from the file of respondent No.1 in related to case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19;

b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1 r-1 in case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19 as per Annexure-P;

c. Consequently dismiss case No.MSC/CR/40/2018-19 dated 12.06.2019 Annexure-P on the file of respondent No.1. d. Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with costs, in the ends of justice and equity.”

2. The petitioner before this Court is the son. The second respondent is a father. Third respondent is the daughter of respondent No.2. The father has filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) before the Assistant Commissioner seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated 23.11.2012 which is registered on 12.07.2013 pertaining to the scheduled property in favour of the son i.e. the petitioner herein and further sought direction to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the father. The parties are referred to as father and son for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the father that he is the absolute owner of the property and out of love and affection towards his son he has executed a gift deed in the year 2012, which is registered on 12.07.2013. It is the case of the father that after obtaining the gift deed, his son became very greedy and violent against him and started harassment and assault very frequently, due to which the relationship between the father and the son became stale and reached to worse situation. Even the father has filed a police complaint with the jurisdictional police. The father has mercilessly thrown-out from the house on 07.01.2017 keeping all belongings and presently he is staying with his daughter. Hence, he has come before this Court with the relief as discussed above.

4. It is the case of the son that the father has voluntarily left the house, even though he is providing all basic necessities to the father. It is a case of the son that during the year 2015-16, without no reason, the father started behaving detrimentally to the interest of the family members by listening to the third persons who are unconnected with the family. He started listening to the daughter and the son-in-law and they polluted the mind of the father and ultimately the father started to communicate by writing notices to all his children. Further the wife and the son were isolated. When nothing has rectified, the father has left the family. It is the case of the son that the mother is staying along with him and father has left the company and according to the son, such a relief cannot be granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order impugned by exercising the powers conferred under the Act has cancelled the gift deed dated 12.07.2013 and declared it as null and void and directed the jurisdictional Sub-Register to comply with the order. While passing the order, the Assistant Commissioner has discussed the purport of the Act and Section 23 of the Act. It is observed that the reasons behind approaching the Tribunal by the senior citizens for the reasons that they have been neglected by their children and for other reasons. The Act is the special beneficial act for the welfare of the senior citizen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24272

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKALalitha Kanneganti, JB.Y. Santosh Raj Urs – AppellantVersusAssistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division and Chairman, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen – RespondentWrit Petition No. 27088 of 2019 (GM-RES)

The judgment establishes that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 requires an explicit condition in the gift deed obligating the donee to provide basic amenities, and without such condition, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to cancel the gift.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Lalitha Kanneganti, J
B.Y. Santosh Raj Urs – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division and Chairman, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27088 of 2019 (GM-RES)