K.MURALIDHAR Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dtd. 10/11/2022 passed by respondent No.1 in No.Kam.Hi.Na.Appeal:09:2022- 23 under Sec. 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act of 2007').

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts case are that respondent No.4, who is the father of the petitioner, had executed a gift deed dtd. 23/3/2006 conveying an open site bearing No.3, Assessment No.15074/32 formed in Sy.No.227 and lying at Chittawadgi, 12th Ward, Devi Nagara, Hosapete Taluk of Vijayanagar District. The petitioner claims that after execution of the gift deed, he constructed a building over the said property. Long thereafter, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings against the petitioner before respondent No.1 under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007. The petitioner contested the said proceedings and contended inter alia that respondent No.1 cannot go into the question whether the gift deed executed by respondent No.4 was valid or not. Nonetheless, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order annulling the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, apparently in exercise of the power under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings before respondent No.1 was not maintainable in view of the express language contained in Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007, which conferred power on respondent No.1 to deal with gifts of properties executed after the commencement of Act of 2007. He contends that the gift deed in question was executed on 23/3/2006 and therefore, respondent No.1 had no power to entertain the proceedings under Sec. 23 of the Act. He also contends that respondent No.4 has filed a suit in O.S. No.59/2022 for perpetual injunction. He contends that respondent No.4 is, therefore, bound to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs and not to knock the doors of respondent No.1. Besides, he contends that the petitioner has done something in furtherance of gift deed such as putting up a construction over the property, and therefore, at this point in time, respondent No.1 cannot annul the gift deed as the possession of property continues with the petitioner and respondent No.1 has no authority in law to restore possession to respondent No.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi,2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684.