Back
BASANT BALAJI
Abootty K. A. – Appellant
Versus
Kolangottil Pathumma – Respondent
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?
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 (!) .
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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
