SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 2169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Satula Devi – Appellant
Versus
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1271 of 2020 & CM APPLs. 697 of 2022, 9891 of 2022, 30096 of 2022
Decided on : 11-07-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Priyanka Gosla, Mr. Yatharth Kumar & Ms. Deepika Kalia, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC for Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma and Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. Abhinav Rao

The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to safeguard the assets of a deceased senior citizen and issue directions to prevent misuse of the assets.

Headnote:

Guardianship - Senior Citizen - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 41(4), 22, 23, 274 - The court appointed a Sole Guardian to safeguard the assets of the deceased senior citizen, Mr. DMP, and issued various directions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of assets.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition related to the guardianship of a senior citizen diagnosed with dementia. The court appointed a Sole Guardian to oversee the deceased senior citizen's assets and issued directions to safeguard the assets.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of a Sole Guardian was necessary to prevent the frittering away or misuse of the deceased senior citizen's substantial assets.

Issues: The main issue was the guardianship of the senior citizen and the safeguarding of his substantial assets after his demise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 41(4) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and issued directions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of the deceased senior citizen's assets.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the applications, affirmed the appointment of the Sole Guardian, and directed that the appointed directions shall continue until modified by a competent court.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Appointment of Sole Guardian to safeguard assets of the deceased senior citizen and related directions (!) (!) (!) - Continuation of orders and safeguards after demise; guardianship to continue until modified by competent court (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Status quo on movable/immovable assets, banking operations, and prior approvals required for expenses or transfers (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Report and accountability requirements by Sole Guardian; monitoring of compliance with earlier directions (!) (!) (!) (!) - Remuneration and governance of the Sole Guardian and related personnel (!) (!) (!) - Proceedings and continuation of related legal actions and remedies in light of guardianship status (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

How to appoint a Sole Guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to safeguard the assets of a deceased senior citizen?

What is the status and continuation of directives and supervision when the ward dies and heirs dispute the estate?

What are the conditions and powers of the Sole Guardian to manage and safeguard movable and immovable assets, including account operations and required prior approvals?


JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present writ petition relates to guardianship which was sought in respect of a senior citizen who is referred to, since inception, as Mr. DMP, who was a Member of Parliament and was diagnosed with ‘fronto-temporal dementia’. The guardianship sought by the Petitioner/Mrs. Satula Devi (hereinafter “Mrs. SD”) – i.e., Mr. DMP’s wife, was vehemently contested by other family members of Mr. DMP and the petition was heard by this Court from time to time. Mrs. SD was supported by her two sons – Respondent No.4/Mr. Rajiv Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. RS”), Respondent No.3/Mr. Ranjit Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. RJS”) and their respective families. However, Respondent No.5/Ms. Uma Devi (hereinafter “Ms. UD”), who was Mr. DMP’s companion, Intervener/Mr. Umesh Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. US”)– Mr. DMP’s brother, and Respondent No.6/Mrs. Kanchana Rai (hereinafter “Mrs. KR”), - Mr. DMP’s daughter-in-law whose husband was the deceased third son of Mr. DMP, and her sons were opposing the present writ petition.

2. The present writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 29th October, 2021, whereby Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was appointed as the Supervising Guardian along with a Guardianship Committee to take care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. Subsequently, on 6th January, 2022, this Court was informed of Mr. DMP’s demise on 27th December, 2021. Various disputes between the family members had also been cited on the said date and there were allegations of utilization of Mr. DMP’s assets by the contesting Respondents. Accordingly, vide order dated 6th January 2022, Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was appointed as the Sole Guardian of Mr. DMP and the Guardianship Committee was disbanded. Various directions were issued vide the said order. The same are as under:

    “22. Considering the fact that this Court had appointed the Guardianship Committee and Supervising Guardian vide its previous order dated 29th October, 2021, in order to safeguard the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP, considering his demise and the continuous disputes between the family members brought to the notice of this Court today, it is clear that the Guardianship Committee cannot effectively function. Moreover, since Mr. DMP has passed away, the members of the Guardianship Committee may possibly also have claims in the estate of Mr. DMP and would be conflicted in taking decisions. There is also a need to safeguard and secure the assets so that the same, which run into thousands of crores, are not frittered away or misused in any manner. In view of the same, the following directions are issued:

(i) In view of the fact that Mr. DMP is no more, the Guardianship Committee shall stand disbanded and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), shall act as the Sole Guardian for the estate and all assets of Mr. DMP henceforth. He shall exercise the same powers mutatis mutandis, as those of the Supervising Guardian and the Guardianship Committee, in terms of order dated 29th October, 2021. Mr. T.R. Narayanan and Mr. Shrinath Banerjee, Personal Assistants of Mr. DMP, and all parties, shall now proceed strictly in accordance with the instructions given by the Sole Guardian in respect of the assets of Mr. DMP.

(ii) A report shall be placed before this Court, by Justice Endlaw (Retd.), within a period of two weeks, in respect of the following aspects:

(a) Whether the various directions concerning Mr. DMP and his assets, passed by this Court have been complied with or not in terms of the Court’s earlier orders and the directions given by him?

(b) The minutes of proceedings containing the directions issued by him from time to time shall be placed on record along with the report.

(c) Current status of the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP, including his bank accounts, fixed deposits, shares and any other investments.

(d) Any further documents/actions which may be required in order to safeguard the moveable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP.

(iii) Since the

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top