Partition Deed Cannot Be Challenged U/S. 23(1) Of Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court held that a partition deed is not covered under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and that such a partition deed cannot be questioned in a proceeding under the provision.

Section 23(1) of the Act reads as follows: "Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option ofthe transferor be declared void by the Tribunal"

In that context, the Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that, "a partition deed is not covered under Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and such a partition deed cannot be questioned in a proceeding under Section 23 of the Act of 2007."

Counsel Shridharamurthy appeared for the petitioners, while Counsel Girish B Baladare and Counsel Basavaraj Godachi appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioners sought the quashing of orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen and District Magistrate Court.

Petitioner No.1, the wife, and Petitioner No.2, the son, challenged the mutation entry in the name of Petitioner No.2 for land in Baragur Village, claiming a 1993 partition deed. Respondent No.1, the father, initiated proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, later invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, challenging the mutation.

The Asst. Commissioner favoured Respondent No.1, altering the mutation entry. The Appellate Authority affirmed this decision. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to set aside these orders.

The High Court observed that two important documents were not considered by either the Asst. Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. With that background, it was held that, "If they had been so considered, it would have been clear to both of them that they are not authorized to exercise jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 in respect of the partition deed."

Cause Title: Lakshmamma & Anr. vs MK Thimmegowda & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment