Guardianship of a Person with Mental Retardation

Raj Kumar vs. Rameshchand

Filed under: Section 50, 52, 53, 54 & 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Appellant: Raj Kumar
Respondent: Rameshchand & others
Citation: (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 29
Court: In the Supreme Court
Judges: B.N.Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu

Facts

Raj Kumar was mentally retarded. With the help of his father, he wrote an application to the Rent Control Authority (RCA) for the eviction of his tenants, Rameshchand and others from his premises. In reply to the eviction petition it was argued that Raj Kumar was a man of unsound mind and hence was not capable of doing any business. Further, it was argued that his father could not act as his guardian since the District Judge had not appointed him as his guardian.

Therefore, Raj Kumar presented an application under the Civil Procedure Code before the RCA seeking to appoint his father as his guardian, which was subsequently done. Rameshchand challenged this order before the High Court. But the High Court affirmed the appointment of Raj Kumar's father as his guardian.

The RCA, after the trial of the case, dismissed the application for eviction and Raj Kumar appealed against this to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision on the ground that the provisions of the Mental Health Act were applicable here and the petition, which was filed before the RCA, was not maintainable without the guardian being appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act. The Court did not consider the merits of the case. Therefore, Raj Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Observations of the Court

After examining the provisions of the Mental Health Act, the Court observed that the application for appointment of a guardian was filed before the Rent Controller and his father was appointed as his guardian. The Court opined that nothing more was required to be done and that the High Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the eviction petition was not maintainable.

Held: The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside. The High Court was directed by the Supreme Court to decide the revision on merits of the case within a period of six months.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 50 and 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987

Top

M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd vs. Beemireddy Lakshminarayana Reddy

Filed under: Order 32 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code
Appellant: M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd
Respondent: Beemireddy Lakshminarayana Reddy
Citation: AIR 2002 A.P 253
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judges: D S R Varma

Facts

Beemireddy Lakshminarayana Reddy had filed a case for recovery against M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd. As Beemireddy was mentally infirm, during the case proceedings an application was filed by Beemireddy’s wife for her appointment as Beemireddy’s guardian under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd also filed an application for appointment of Uppalamarathi Venkata Ramana Reddy as Beemireddy’s guardian. However, the Trial court dismissed the application filed by M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd and appointed Beemireddy’s wife as his guardian.

The present revision petition was filed by M/s Leelason Breweries Ltd challenging the order of the Senior Civil Judge at Nellore for dismissing their application for appointment of Uppalamarathi Venkata Ramana Reddy as guardian for Beemireddy and instead appointing his wife as his guardian instead.

Observations by the Court

The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court that Uppalamarathi Venkata Ramana Reddy could not be appointed as Beemireddy’s guardian as he was a third party to the suit and was also likely to be called as a witness in the case. It was further felt that as Beemireddy’s wife had been looking after his affairs, she would be the proper person to be appointed as his guardian.

The Court also held that the Trial Court had followed the proper procedure under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC in ascertaining for itself that Beemireddy was of unsound mind. The High Court observed that although there was no particular procedure prescribed under Order 32 Rule 15, the Court had to satisfy itself that the concerned person was of unsound mind before declaring him to be so and permitting a guardian to come on record.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court held an elaborate enquiry by not only questioning Beemireddy but also examining Beemireddy’s wife and also the Doctor who gave a medical certificate in respect of Beemireddy’s mental condition. Hence the High Court held that there was no need to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court.

Held: The Revision Petition was therefore dismissed.

Sections Referred:

Top

Jai Prakash Goel vs. the State

Filed under: Order 32 Rules 3 & 15 Civil Procedure Code
Appellant: Jai Prakash Goel
Respondent: The State
Citation: MANU/DE/0780/2004
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Honorable Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen

Facts

Brahm Prakash’s father died leaving behind a will that bequeathed all his immoveable property to his son Jai Prakask Goel and his sons. According to the will all the movable property was left equally to all the three sons, Jai Prakash Goel, Satya Prakash Goel and Brahm Prakash Goel.

Smt Muthri Devi, mother of the three also died shortly and in her will, she left a part of her property in a trust for the benefit of Brahm Prakash. In the Probate Proceedings concerning the father’s will an application was filed by Brahm Prakash seeking the appointment of his wife Ms Meena Goel as his guardian.

Observations of the Court

The High Court took into account the following:

  1. Brahm Prakash was examined by the institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences Shahdara and he was reported to be mentally retarded with low intellect.
  2. Brahm Prakash’s inconsistent behaviour while litigating his father probate case was also observed by the High Court. He had initially filed a ‘no objection certificate’ to the case through one lawyer and thereafter withdrew the same through another lawyer.
  3. The fact that Brahm Prakash’s mother had created a Trust for his benefit showed that she had also felt that he could not look after his own property.

For the above reasons, the High Court allowed Brahm Prakash’s application and appointed his wife Meena as his guardian while holding that because of his mental infirmity, Brahm Prakash was incapable of protecting his interests in the present litigation.

Sections Referred:

Top