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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Satula Devi - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1271 of 2020 & CM Appls. 697 of 2022, 9891 of 2022 and 30096 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022




A guardian's authority endures post the ward's death to prevent asset dissipation amidst disputes, as established under Section 41(4) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 41(4) - Guardianship over estate of senior citizen with dementia - Writ petition concerning guardianship was contested by family members and was legally disposed of, appointing a Sole Guardian for the estate after the ward's demise. Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was tasked with safeguarding substantial assets amidst family disputes and was empowered to ensure compliance with Court's directives for asset management and protection. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Judicial authority structure - The Court ruled that the appointed Sole Guardian shall retain authority post-ward's demise until a competent Court discharges their role, emphasizing the necessity to prevent asset dissipation among contending heirs. (Paras 7-10)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought guardianship over a senior citizen, suffering from dementia, amidst family disputes over his assets after his demise. The need for a Sole Guardian was established to manage his significant estate due to ongoing conflicts. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The Court maintained that all previous directives regarding the management of the estate remain in effect and that the Sole Guardian's powers persist until further order, ensuring protection of the estate. (Paras 6-10)

Issues: The key issue before the Court was the continued authority of the appointed Sole Guardian after the death of the ward and the related conflicts over the substantial estate. (Paras 7, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that in light of the ongoing family disputes and the significant value of the estate, the Sole Guardian's mandate must remain until a competent Court rules on their discharge, highlighting the risk of asset mismanagement. (Paras 9-10)

Result: The applications were disposed of, maintaining the authority of the Sole Guardian until further Court directives.

Table of Content
1. guardianship contested among family members. (Para 1)
2. appointment of guardianship due to disputes. (Para 2)
3. continued control of the sole guardian over estate. (Para 3 , 6 , 9)
4. legal arguments regarding guardianship powers. (Para 7 , 8)
5. resolution and closure of ongoing petitions. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

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

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