Writ Petition No. 9847 of 2026 · Karnataka High Court

SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE GANGAHONNAMMA, W/O LATE NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING JALAMANGALA VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 159. (BY SRI. LOKESH S.G, ADVOCATE) AND: &PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT FOR PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, RAMANAGARA REVENUE SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

SMT. JAYAMMA @ SARVAMMA W/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT BESAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 572 213. (BY SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR RC/R2; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1) &RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21063 WP No. 9847 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05-03-2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN HIRIYA NA. RA. KA. SAN. 44/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated

05.03.2026 passed by the first respondent/Tribunal, whereby the release deed in question is declared void, purportedly on the ground of breach attributable to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

On a careful examination of the impugned order, this Court finds that the first respondent/Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of an application filed under Section 23 of the - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21063 WP No. 9847 of 2026 HC-KAR Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 8the Act9) in a wholly perfunctory and mechanical manner. The order impugned is a one-line cryptic endorsement recorded the order sheet, which conspicuously bereft of reasons. The Tribunal has neither examined nor recorded a finding as to whether the release deed in question contains any stipulation imposing an obligation upon the transferee to maintain the transferor, nor has it adverted to the essential requirement of establishing breach of such condition, which is sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act.

What is more disturbing is the complete absence of any discussion as to the foundational jurisdictional fact, namely, whether in the absence of an express condition in the document, the Tribunal could have assumed jurisdiction to annul the transfer. The scheme of Section 23 of the Act clearly predicates that a transfer can be declared void only upon satisfaction of two essential ingredients: firstly, that the transfer was made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21063 WP No. 9847 of 2026 HC-KAR transferor; and secondly, that there is a failure or refusal on the part of the transferee to fulfil such obligation. The impugned order is silent on both these crucial aspects and, therefore, reflects total non-application of mind.

On a pointed query by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 fairly concedes that the order passed by the Tribunal is cryptic and does not assign any reasons. Such an order, which visits a party with serious civil consequences by declaring a registered document as void, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is trite that reason is the heartbeat of every judicial and quasi-judicial order and absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable.

In the above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside, reserving liberty to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.