WP/59381/2015 of SMT T VENKATA LAKSHMI Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 31 December 2015

ORDER

The learned Government Advocate is) directed to take notice for respondent no.l. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 would seriously object to|

the entertainment of the present petition, as the facts.are in serious dispute.

2. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner’smother had died when she was an infant and since her.father had abandoned her, she had been brought up by|the second respondent who is none other than her)erandiather. The second respondent was the owner of)the property bearing No.4, I[( ]‘B’ Main Road, 2["/]Cross,Cholurpalya, Magadi Road Post, Bangalore-560 O23)where they were all residing together. It transpires|that the properties were transierred by the second)respondent in favour of the first petitioner by way of a)registered gift deed dated 04.01.2012. —

It is alleged that the first petitioner’s father whonever bothered to take care of the first petitioner, hadinstigated the second respondent to file a petition|under the Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare otfParents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 before the'Assistant Commissioner — the first respondent. In the)

proceedingsinitiated therein,the.AssistantCommissioner has directed to cancel the Gift Deed-made by the second respondent in favour of the first|petitioner and has also directed that the petitioners be|evicted from the premises and the second respondent|be put in possession. It is that which is under.Challenge in the petitions. —

3. The learned counsel for the _ petitionerwould point out that though it is true that the Iirst|petitioner was brought up by the second respondent,|he had in turn tendered the property by way of a giit in|favour of the first petitioner out of love and aliiectionand indeed he was taking care of the first petitioner|along with her husband. It transpires that though the |first petitioner’s father never bothered to take care ofher aiter the death of her mother and it is only the)second respondent who had taken care of the first petitioner, now instigated by her father to initiate|

proceedings against her, the second respondent had|filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner|and has got an order canceling the gift deed executed|in her favour.

The learned counsel would further state that the.petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing|

before passing the impugned order by the tfirstrespondent. The learned counsel states that the first.petitioner is ready and willing to take care of the|second respondent and she was infact taking care of|him before the order was passed.

Procedure

4The learned counsel for the respondent|opposes the contentions of the learned counsel|appearing for the petitioners and would point out that|there was every opportunity granted to the petitioners|and since they had failed to take care of the second|

respondent who remained outside the house, initiated|proceedings against them. The order passed by the|first respondent does not call for interference. It is the|further contention ot the learned counsel for therespondent that it is also prima-facie found that the|silt deed by way of which the petitioners claim the|property was executed, was by way olf fraud and thesecond respondent was misled that he was executing a|rental agreement in favour of a third party.

5On a perusal of the submissions of the|learned counsel and on a perusal of the impugned|order, it is seen that the first respondent, without|hearing the petitioners, has passed the impugned order|and therefore, on this sole ground, the petitions require|to be allowed. It would be appropriate that the.petitioners be given an opportunity of hearing before|any such an extreme order is passed against the Iirst|

petitioner. In view of the claim of maintenance of|second respondent not having been met by the|petitioners, it would be necessary to direct the|petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month|as maintenance.

Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Theimpugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded|to the first respondent with a condition that the.petitioners shall deposit Rs.5,QO00/- per month asmaintenance from the date of application of the second.respondent till the date of payment and they shall|continue to deposit the said maintenance of Rs.5,000/-_per month, till the disposal of the application filed by the second respondent before the first respondent.

Having regard to the precarious condition of thesecond respondent, the first respondent shall dispose|

of the application of the second respondent within|three months. |

since it is admitted that the second respondent is_occupying one portion of the very same premises in|which the petitioners are also residing, both the parties|are directed to maintain status-quo and shall notcause any nuisance to each other.

dh|

Sd/-

JUDGE