SMT NAGARATHNAMMA v. 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076

3. SRI. VENKATESH DODDEGOWDA, SON OF LATE DR.N.DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOWDANAKUPPE VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572134

4. SRI.PRANABH, (TENANT), RESIDING AT 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076

5. SRI. DEEPANKSHU, (TENANT) RESIDING AT 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR

6. SMT. REENA, (TENANT), RESIDING A NO 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076

7. SRI.THANGA VEDA, (TENANT), RESIDING AT 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076

8. SRI.KIRTI, (TENANT), RESIDING AT 49, MARUTHI PRASANNA, BHCS LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; V/O DTD 06.01.2026 NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 STANDS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.NIL, IN MSC(SENIOR 1ST CITIZEN) RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-J FILED BY THE PETITIONER. CR.121/2025-26 THE BY THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner [a mother of four who stays abroad], has filed this petition calling in question the first respondent's decision to issue notice on her application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act]. The petitioner in her application under the Act has called in question the Gift Deed dated 15.09.2025 executed by her in favour of her two sons [the second and third respondents]. This Gift Deed dated 15.09.2025 is executed for the property bearing Municipal No.49, PID No.65-95-49, New PID No.9919944486 in BTM Layout, Ward No.176, Bengaluru [subject property], and this property consists of six residential units.

2. This Court, on 09.01.2026, has recorded that the petitioner, who is now with one of the daughters in the United States desires to come back to India and reside in one of the residential units with - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR the advantage of the usufruct from the remaining five units. The petitioner has logged in online on each day including today. The third respondent [one of the petitioner's sons] has also travelled back to India and is present in the Court. This respondent is present because this Court has called upon the learned counsel on record for him and his brother [the second respondent] to secure instructions on whether there could be consensus in view of the mother stating willingness before this Court to spend her days in the subject property.

3. Mr. Punith C, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. K. Venkatachalapathy, the learned counsel second and respondents, are heard and this Court has also interacted with the third respondent. This Court must, at the outset, observe that it is undisputed that the petitioner's sisters have filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.393/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR and JMFC, Kunigal for partition of not only the subject property but also the other immovable properties. The suit is pending and the petitioner has filed written statement setting forth circumstances why the Gift Deeds, including the Gift Deed dated

15.09.2025 should not prevail.

4. Mr. Punith C, submits that any arrangement that could be by consensus should not impede the petitioner's right to contest the suit and to devise her interest in the properties in the manner she has decided/decides. The third respondent, while refuting all allegations of negligence in looking after the petitioner, submits that both he and the second respondent would agree upon the petitioner residing in the subject property and the respective rights therein and the other lands being decided in the suit, but he submits that this Court must permit either the second respondent or him to manage the tenancy and ensure that the rents are deposited in the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner's account for her welfare. If this is one set of circumstances for the disposal of the petition, the is because of the question whether the proceedings before the first respondent under the Act of 2007 must continue despite consensus as aforementioned.

5. The substantive interest in the subject property and the other properties must necessarily be decided in the suit and such decision would include a decision on whether the petitioner could have executed the Gift Deed and if she could not have, the rights that must be. There should not be any precipitation until there is such decision on merits or an outcome based on a consensus even in the suit. Presently, the consensus is both as regards the comprehensive adjudication in the suit and the mother's right to reside in the subject property and to use the usufruct for maintenance without being dependent on any of daughter or son. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR

6. The only defence, as discerned by this Court is, whether the petitioner must manage the tenancy of the other five residential units to receive the rent for her maintenance. The petitioner proposes to travel from the United States to Bengaluru to spend her time in the subject property; and with all the children living in the United States, she will have to necessarily choose a caregiver, and this would be crucial. The petitioner will have to incur expenses and the fund for that must be readily available to her.

7. If the petitioner manages the tenancy with the support of the caregiver, it would not create any interest in the subject property in favour of the caregiver or the petitioner, which will have to be decided pending suit. On a comprehensive/overall consideration circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of resulting in closure of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR [the first respondent] subject to the terms as stated hereafter. Hence, the following. ORDER [a] All questions relating to the petitioner's right to execute the Gift Deed dated

15.09.2025 and the rights in the subject property shall be decided in the pending suit in O.S.No.393/2025. [b] The petitioner must be at liberty to exercise the right to reside in the subject property and avail the assistance of a caregiver who could also assist her in managing the tenancy of the five units that would be given on rent. [c] The petitioner must be at liberty to utilise the rental income for her everyday requirements and well-being. [d] If any tenant proposes to vacate, the terms upon which the tenant must vacate; and if there is any dispute with the tenant, that - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:5395 WP No. 38997 of 2025 HC-KAR must also be handled by the petitioner with the assistance of the caregiver. [e] If the second or the third respondent or any other or their siblings have any dispute over the same, that should necessarily be decided by the civil Court in the pending suit. [f] Neither the petitioner nor the caregiver can assert any right in the subject property because of the arrangement. The petition stands disposed of with the afore terms calling upon the second respondent to close the pending proceedings. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB