L. N. RAJESH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dtd. 24/11/2020 passed by the first respondent in Case No. . Á. .Dgï.04/2020-21 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "2007 Act").

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.V.Prakash, Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned AGA for Respondent No.1, Sri.M.M.Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Chidambara, learned counsel for Respondent No.2(A). Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and 3rd respondent are sons of Late Neelakantaiah and Smt.Nagamani L.N. who is now on record as Respondent No.2(A). Late Neelakantaiah gifted the property bearing old katha No.1506 assessment No.9114/9689, New katha No.2149, assessment No.9114/2261 and assessment No.9114A/7689A situated at Venkateshpura extension, Chitradurga in favour of the petitioner under registered Gift deed dtd. 4/2/2004. During the lifetime of Late Sri.Neelakantaiah, he instituted proceedings under Sec. 5 of the 2007 Act against the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent praying to set aside the registered Gift deed dtd. 4/2/2004. The first respondent, after hearing the parties to the proceedings under the impugned order setting aside the registered gift deed dtd. 4/2/2004 executed in favour of the petitioner and directed to mutate the property in the name of Sri.Neelakantaiah. During the pendency of the writ petition, Neelakantaiah died and Nagamani wife of Neelakantaiah, the mother of petitioner and 3rd respondent has come on record as Respondent No.2(A). Learned counsel Sri.S.V.Prakash contends that the Act has come into force on 29/12/2007 and is prospective. Under Sec. 23 of the Act, the first respondent could not have set aside the gift deed executed on 4/2/2004. He submits that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to set aside Gift deed under Sec. 23 which has been executed much prior to coming into force of 2007 Act. Learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1170/2021 (SMT.C.KAMALAMMA v/s SRI.P.GOPAL AND OTHERS) disposed of on 16/11/2021 wherein the finding of the learned Single Judge that the transactions which had taken place much prior to enactment of the Act are saved and therefore, the appellant having gifted the property much prior to the commencement of Act, could not have invoked Sec. 23(1) of the Act is confirmed. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36601/2017 (SRI.NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) by order dtd. 25/3/2019 has held that 2007 Act would be applicable to the transactions which are taken place subsequent to coming into force of 2007 Act. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.