Smt Shobha K B v. Sri Bharmappa D K

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40578( WP(No.(8344(of(2023( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010184452023( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RD DATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.G.S.(KAMAL(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(8344(OF(2023((GM-RES)(

BETWEEN:(( ( , SMT.,SHOBHA,K.B, W/O,LATE,SHADAKSHARI,D.B,,

AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,,TEACHER, R/A,NO.111/84, SRI,MARULASIDESHWARA,NILAYA, SHYAMA,BADAVANE,,NITTUVALLI,

NEAR,SIDDESHWARA,MILL,, DAVANAGERE,CITY., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,M.R.,HIREMATHAD,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( (

1.,Digitallytisigned SRI.,BHARMAPPA,D.K, by0SUMA0B0N S/O,LATE,NANJAPPA,D.K, Location: HIGH0COURT AGED,ABOUT,77,YEARS, OF KARNATAKA ,

2., SMT.,GOWRAMMA, W/O,SRI.,BHARMAPPA,D.K, AGED,ABOUT,73,YEARS, , BOTH,ARE,R/AT,SUNKADAKATTE,VILLAGE, HONNALI,TALUK,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,217., , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40578( WP(No.(8344(of(2023( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010184452023( ( (

3., SMT.,SUDHA, D/O,SRI.,BHARMAPPA,D.K, W/O,VEERANNA,BANAKAR, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, R/A,PRABHAVATI,SPRING, G-8,,ELECTRONIC,CITY, ANANT,NAGARA,,7TH,CROSS, OPPOSITE,DARSHINI,ANIKETANA,APARTMENT, BENGALURU,-,560,100., ,

4., SRI.,MAHENDRA,D.B, S/O,SRI.,BHARMAPPA,D.K, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS, R/A,SUNKADAKATTE,VILLAGE, HONNALI,TALUK, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,217., ,

5., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,, CUM,PRESIDING,OFFICER, THE,TRIBUNAL,FOR,MAINTENANCE,, AND,WELARE,OF,SENIOR,CITIZENS,, AND,PARENTS,,HONNALI,-,577,001., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,P.N.,HARISH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,M.,SRINIVAS,KUMAR,,HCGP,FOR,R5, ,,,,,,R2,,R3,AND,R4,ARE,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, RECORDS, FROM, THE, FILE, OF, R-5, IN, RESPECT, OF, THE, PROCEEDINGS,DTD,08.03.2023.,QUASHING,THE,ORDER,DTD,

08.03.2023, PASSED, BY, THE, R-5, I.E, THE, ASST., COMMISSIONER,HONNALI,,PRODUCED,,,AT,ANNX-A,AND,ETC.,,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

¶1Petitioner, who is the daughter in law of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2023 passed by respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner cum Presiding Officer as per Annexure-A, in terms of which, respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner has cancelled a registered deed of partition dated 27.11.2014.

¶2Brief facts of the case: Husband of the petitioner named Shadakshari D.B and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are the children of respondent Nos.1 and 2. That a deed of partition dated

27.11.2014 came to be registered amongst them partitioning the ancestral joint family properties. In terms of the said partition, land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.52/4, 1 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.52/5 was allotted to the share of husband of the petitioner. Similarly

respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also been allotted their respective shares. Name of the husband of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in the year 2015-16. Husband of the petitioner passed away on 31.12.2015 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. There upon petitioner had approached the revenue authorities during October-2020, seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records. Accordingly, her name was mutated in respect of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.52/4 and 52/5. Things stood thus respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4 allegedly filed petition before respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner, invoking the Provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens and Parents Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act'). Objection statements were filed by the petitioner herein. Without considering the facts and the applicable law, respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order, cancelling the registered deed of partition. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the records submits that, respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction and power under the Act to cancel the deed of partition. That there is no case made out by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requiring grant of any relief either under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act or under Section 23 of the Act. Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner also has failed to appreciate that in terms of the said deed of partition even respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also been given their share in the property. As such, there was no requirement of providing any maintenance either. Hence, seeks for allowing the petition.

¶4On the other hand, learned counsel appearing of respondent No.1 justifying the order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner submits that, upon the demise of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner has completely neglected to provide maintenance and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being aged above 75 years are not in a position to cultivate and look

after themselves. Therefore, respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the application, cancelling the deed of partition.

¶5Heard and perused the records.

¶6The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Nanjundappa and Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others in WP No.36601/2017 and 42708-709/2017 C/W 21447/2017 as held that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the registered partition deed in exercise of the power under Section 23 of the Act, which has been followed by this Court in WP No. 20115 of 2021. Since, the issue now stands covered with regard to legality or otherwise of the power exercised by the Assistant Commissioner in cancelling the partition deed, which is the case at hand, impugned order dated 08.03.2023 at Annexure-A, cancelling the partition deed therefore, stands quashed.

¶7As regards the question of maintenance is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the daughter and the son respectively of

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are well placed. Besides, they also have been allotted property in the said partition and maintenance, if any, can be sought for by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as against them.

¶8Keeping open option for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to seek maintenance, if required, against respondent Nos. 3 and 4, petition stands disposed of.

SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7