WA/412/2025 of SRI C ARASOJI RAO Vs THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND on 14 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 13.02.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 386/2023 (GM-RES).

2. The appellant is a senior citizen and had filed a petition under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [the Act] before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division (the Tribunal). He claimed that his wife and children were neglecting to maintain him, and therefore he was residing with his two sisters. He claims that a partition took place in the year 2015, whereby a portion of immovable property (the subject property) fell to his share. He executed two gift deeds dated 17.04.2017, gifting two portions of the subject property to his two sisters. The appellant complained that immediately after he had executed the gift deeds,

HC-KAR

his sisters also started neglecting him and, therefore, he is now left with no one to look after him.

3. In the aforesaid context, he sought cancellation of the gift deeds executed in favour of his sisters. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition by an order dated 05.04.2022 and cancelled both the gift deeds. One of the donees, Smt. Venku Bai, the appellant's sister, had expired prior to the institution of the said petition and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are her children. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.04.2022, respondent No.3 (the surviving donee) and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner-I, Bengaluru North Sub Division, the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 15 of the Act.

4. The Special Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal inter alia on the ground that the gift deeds did not contain any recital to the effect that they had been executed subject to the condition that the donees (the appellant's sisters) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the appellant.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal preferred before the

HC-KAR

Special Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable. His contention was that the appeal under Section 16 of the Act is available only to a senior citizen and not to any other person. He also relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in K.Lokesh vs The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru and Others1.

6. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contentions and quashed the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. However, the learned Single Judge was further of the view that it was incumbent upon the Assistant Commissioner to have first considered the very maintainability of the appellant's petition and accordingly set aside the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter to the said authority for consideration afresh.

7. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have confined the order to setting aside the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and ought not to have 1 2025 (3) Kar.L.J 73.

HC-KAR

interfered with the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

8. Stricto sensu, there may be merit in the appellant's grievance that his writ petition was confined to challenging the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, and therefore the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have been interfered with. However, the learned Single Judge noted the issue of the maintainability of the appellant's petition before the Assistant Commissioner and was accordingly persuaded to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. We may also note that in K.Lokesh (supra), while the court held that an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner is available only to a senior citizen or a parent, it also observed that the other private respondents, if aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, would have recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, accepting the appellant's contention in the given facts would merely relegate the private respondents to that remedy. Given the nature of the issues raised by the private respondents, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order.

HC-KAR

9. However, considering the age of the appellant, we direct the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appellant's petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from date.

10. We also clarify that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, restraining the private respondents from dealing with or alienating the properties in dispute, shall remain in force until the matter is reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner.

11. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. The pending application also stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49