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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J.
Abootty K.A. – Petitioner
Versus
Kolangottil Pathumma and ors. – Respondents
FAO NO. 32 OF 2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.C. Chacko (Parathanam) Asha P. Kuriakose
For the Respondent: Adv. P.C Chacko, V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Amicus Curiae, Sri. Gireesh Kumar, CGC, Smt K.B Sony, GP

Point of Law: Rule 8 deals with ‘qualification of person to be appointed as a limited guardian’.

Headnote:

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 14, (1) - Mental Health Care Act 2017 - Kerala Rules - Rules 4, 7 and 8 - Properties - Appoint as guardian - Grant permission to execute ratification/consent deed - Petition was filed to appoint appellant as guardian of person and property and also to grant permission to appellant as guardian to execute ratification/consent deed in respect of petition schedule properties ratifying execution of deed of partition – Legislature, in its wisdom, had drafted section to give concurrent jurisdiction to District Court as well as designated authority - Para 10.

Finding of the Court :

Party is given option of either jurisdiction of District Court or designated authority - Legislature, in its wisdom, had drafted section to give concurrent jurisdiction to District Court as well as designated authority - A combined reading of Section 14 (1) coupled with Rules 4, 7 and 8 of Kerala Rules, it is amply clear that District Court or designated authority notified by State Government has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a petition or appointment of a limited guardian of person who is coming under definition of ‘person with disability’ under Section 2(s) of Act – Court have no hesitation in holding that District Judge fell in error in returning petition for want of jurisdiction - Order passed by learned District Judge is set aside.

Result: F.A.O. is allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The District Court and the designated authority (Sub Divisional Magistrate) have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions for the appointment of a limited guardian under Section 14(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (!) (!) . - A combined reading of Section 14(1) and Rules 4, 7, and 8 of the Kerala Rules clarifies that the District Court is a competent authority, despite the State Government designating the Sub Divisional Magistrate (!) (!) . - The District Judge erred in returning the petition for want of jurisdiction, as the legislation provides an option for the party to choose between the District Court or the designated authority (!) (!) . - Rule 4 of the Kerala Rules explicitly states that the "designated authority/Court" shall satisfy itself regarding the person's inability to take legally binding decisions before granting limited guardianship (!) . - Rule 7 of the Kerala Rules further confirms that both the court and the designated authority have the duty to scrutinize applications and consider matters regarding the appointment of limited guardianship (!) (!) . - Rule 8 of the Kerala Rules specifies the qualifications for a limited guardian and applies to both the District Court and the designated authority when making appointment decisions (!) . - The order passed by the learned District Judge returning the petition is set aside, and the petitioner is allowed liberty to re-present the petition before the District Court (!) . - The judgment explicitly states that the decision addresses the question of jurisdiction alone and does not express any opinion on the merits of the case (!) .

What are the rights of a District Court versus a designated authority under Section 14(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 regarding the appointment of limited guardians?

How to determine the jurisdiction of a District Court to entertain a petition for the appointment of a limited guardian under the Kerala Rules?

What is the legal interpretation of concurrent jurisdiction between a District Court and a designated authority under Section 14(1) and Rules 4, 7, and 8 of the Kerala Rules?


JUDGMENT :

The appellant was the petitioner before the District Court, Wayanad. The petition was filed under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, ‘the Act’) to appoint the appellant as the guardian of the person and property of one Sulaiman and also to grant permission to the appellant as guardian to execute the ratification/consent deed in respect of the petition schedule properties ratifying the execution of the deed of partition No.1627/2006 of SRO, Panamaram. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this F.A.O. are as follows:

2. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the direct brothers and sisters of the appellant; respondents no.5 to 10 are the legal heirs of the late Ibrahim; respondents nos.11 to 13 are the children of one Nabeeza; and respondents nos.14 and 15 are the children of Sulaiman. The appellant is the brother of Sulaiman, who is aged 68 years and a mentally disabled person due to Sehizo-Phrenia and having 40% permanent disability. The Medical Board attached to the Department of Health Services, District Hospital, Mananthavadi, has issued a certificate showing the disability. The appellant averred that he is looking after the affairs of Sulaiman, and residing with him. Sulaiman was married and had two children, but subsequently, the wife divorced Sulaiman by exercising fasq. The petition schedule properties originally belonged to the mother of the appellant and the respondents as per the certificate of jenm purchase issued by the Land Tribunal, Sulthan Bathery. On the mother's death, the property devolved to the petitioner, Sulaiman, and the respondents nos.1 to 4 jointly, along with Ibrahim and Nabeesa. Later, Ibrahim and Nabeesa died, and their rights devolved upon respondents nos.5 to 13. In 2006, they executed a deed of partition No.1627 of 2006, and thereby, the entire property was partitioned, and C schedule was allotted to Sulaiman. Sulaiman is under the care and custody of the appellant, including the property allotted to him. He has no adverse interest against Sulaiman. Therefore, the petition was filed.

3. On the presentation of the petition, the O.P. was not entertained for the reason that the court did not have jurisdiction under the Mental Health Care Act 2017. Thereafter, the counsel for the appellant gave a reply on 12.07.2022, stating that the issue is covered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as he is suffering from Sehizo-Phrenia and 40% disability. He relied on the judgment reported in 2021 (3) KHC 304. Thereafter, the learned Judge, by order dated 18.07.2022, returned the petition, stating as follows:

    “Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the gazette notification, SRO No.609/2020 dated 23.09.2020, which shows that the Govt. of Kerala has notified and designated the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area as the designated authority for granting limited guardianship under sub Section 1 of Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and therefore, the Court is not the competent authority to recourse the said jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is returned.”

4. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the District Court has the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act to entertain the petition for provision for guardianship. For a proper understanding of the case, Section 14 of the Act is extracted below:

    “14. Provision for guardianship.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, where a district court or any designated authority, as notified by the State Government, finds that a person with disability, who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but is unable to take legally binding decisions, may be provided further support of a limited guardian to take legally binding decisions on his behalf in consultation with such person, in such manner, as may be prescribed by the State Government:

Provided that the Di

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        SupremeToday

        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