0IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.51379/2019(GM-RES) SRI RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, THIRUPATHI POST, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
(BY SRI S. THAVARESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN-573201.
2 . THE TAHSILDAR ARSIKERE TALUK-573103. HASSAN DISTRICT.
3 . SMT.NANJAMMA W/O LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, THIRUPATHI POST, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-573103.
HASSAN DISTRICT ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2019 PASSSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, ARSIKERE TALUK, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, canceling the gift deed dated 30.10.2018 executed by respondent No.3- Smt. Nanjamma, in favour of one Smt. Savithramma, wife of the present petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the son of the 3rd respondent and he has three sisters. After the death of his father about 45 years back, he took responsibility of the entire family. He performed the marriage of all his three sisters and they are living happily with their spouse and children in their matrimonial home. The petitioner was managing all the affairs of the family and also took care of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.59/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Bommenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. As the petitioner’s mother-respondent No.3 was unable to travel, petitioner obtained loan from the bank for developing the land and with the consent of the 3rd respondent got the gift deed dated 30.10.2018 executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of his wife, in the office of the Sub Registrar of Arasikere and got changed the khatha and mutation into the name of his wife. Aggrieved by the same, his sisters filed suit in O.S.No.579/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, for equal share of property and the said suit is still pending for adjudication.
3. When things stood thus, on the application filed by the 3rd respondent, under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (‘Act’ for short), the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, by the impugned Order dated 16.09.2019, cancelled the gift deed dated 30.10.2018 and also the mutation entries. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Vijaykumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, raised the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He contended that admittedly, the 3rd respondent executed the gift deed dated 30.10.2018 in favour of her daughter-in-law/Smt. C.N.Savithramma, i.e., the wife of the petitioner. Considering the application filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 23(1) of the Act, the 1st respondent, cancelled the gift deed by the impugned Order dated 16.09.2019. If at all, Smt.Savithramma, the donee under the gift deed is aggrieved by the impugned Order, she has to approach this Court, but not her husband. Admittedly, the present writ petition is filed by the husband of the donee who is no way concerned with the gift deed, except that he is the husband of the donee. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Sri S. Thavaresh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all along, the petitioner was taking care of the 3rd respondent. He performed the marriages of his three sisters. The gift deed executed by his mother in favour of his wife is valid. The respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner ought not to have passed the impugned Order. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the property bearing Sy.No.59/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Bommenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, belongs to the 3rd respondent who is aged about 78 years, and she executed the registered gift deed dated 30.10.2018 in favour of her daughter-in-law/Smt. Savithramma, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent before the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioner and his wife obtained the gift deed by playing fraud and they are not taking care of her. Therefore, she made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, who, considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding that even after giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner herein and his wife have not filed any objections.
8. It is also not in dispute that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, came into force with effect from 01.04.2008 and admittedly, the gift deed in question has been executed on 30.10.2018, after coming into force of the ‘Act’. Admittedly, Smt.Savithramma, donee, is not before this Court. The petitioner who is no way concerned either with regard to the property or the gift deed is before this Court and therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. On that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the gift deed executed in favour of Smt.Savithramma, wife of the petitioner is also invalid, in view of the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
9. This Court, while considering the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (‘Act’ for short), in the case of N.D VANAMALA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in ILR 2019 KAR 247, at paragraphs 26 to 29, has held as under:
26. “It is well settled that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the elder persons. Old age is incurable, increase of disease, you do not heal old age, you protect it, you promote it, you extend it.” Admittedly in the present case, the children of the 4th respondent are educated, but they are not taking care of the mother and the petitioner who is the daughter of the 4th respondent/mother got the gift deed from the 4th respondent on the pretext that she will take care of the 4th respondent throughout her life and after getting the gift deed in her favour, the petitioner deprived the basic amenities and physical needs to the 4th respondent. Therefore, the 4th respondent was driven before the Assistant Commissioner/3rd respondent invoking the provisions of the ‘Act’. “It is high time for the heartless sons/daughters etc., to know that the life consists of reaction, resound and reflection. What they are doing to their parents today would get back exactly tomorrow. What is the use of their education, power-position and wealth, when it does not help them to change their destiny.
When the bad thoughts enter their mind; their education, intelligence, power and wealth become futile and meaningless.”
27. There are no greater gods than parents. There is no greater Dharma than compassion, there is no enemy greater than anger, there is no wealth greater than good reputation, bad reputation is death itself. Even according to Manusmruthi, No person can repay his parents even in 100 years for all the troubles that they go through to give birth to him/her and raise him/ her to adulthood. Therefore, always try to do whatever pleases your parents and your teacher, because only then does any religious worship done by you will bear some fruit.”
28. The object of the ‘Act’ is not to punish a person for neglecting to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. It is to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the parents and senior citizens, who are in distress, by a summary procedure. The provisions of the Act have to be liberally construed as the primary object is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. They are intended to achieve this social purpose.
29. The legislators enacted the provisions of the ‘Act’ and ‘Rules’ thereunder to ensure proper care and safety of senior citizens. Inspite of the said provisions enacted by the legislature, the “Court or the Authority cannot follow the proposition of “wait and watch” by sitting on the fence and it is not expected that the senior citizens will run from pillar to post and the assault and abuses by their children would be allowed to be continued and senior citizens cannot be used as commodity or chattel by their children.” The circumstances warrants that the Court has to act as a guardian to protect Dharma. At this juncture, it is apt to extract verse 7-8 of Chapter 4 of the Bhagavadgeetha, which says:
“AiÀÄzÁ AiÀÄzÁ»zsÀªÀÄð¸Àå UÁ褨sÀðªÀw ¨sÁgÀvÀ C¨sÀÄåzÁ£ÀªÀÄzsÀªÀÄð¸Àå vÀzÁvÁä£ÁA ¸ÀÈeÁªÀÄåºÀA ¥ÀjvÁæuÁAiÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀÆ£ÁA «£Á±ÁAiÀÄ ZÀ zÀĵÀÌøvÁA zsÀªÀÄð ¸ÀA¸ÁÞ¥À£ÁxÁðAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¨sÀªÁ«Ä AiÀÄÄUÉà AiÀÄÄUÉÃ!”
which means:
Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, And there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I myself come forth;
For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.”
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm