The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty and power of the guardian under the Mental Health Act to manage the property and financial resources for the benefit of the mentally ill person.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section 76 of the Mental Health Act, 1987, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the common fair and decreetal orders dated 13.07.2020 in I.A.No.5, 3 & 4 of 2019 in M.H.O.P.No.177 of 2017 respectively, on the file of learned Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.)

1. Heard Mr.N.Kumar Rajan, learned counsel for the appellant through Video Conferencing, due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned common order dated 13.07.2020 passed in I.A.No.5, 3 & 4 of 2019 in M.H.O.P.No.177 of 2017 respectively by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, in and by which, learned Court below while dismissing the Interlocutory Applications filed by the appellant, who is the guardian of a mentally ill person (J.Karthik), held that under the guise of development of the property, the appellant herein cannot claim any share in the petition schedule property so as to alienate the same to the credit of a third party by entering into an agreement.

3. Short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated below:-

Mr.J.Karthik is a mentally ill-health person by birth itself and he is now aged about 40 years and residing at No.69, Appar Street, 2nd Cross Street, Ground Floor, Kamakodi Nagar,, Valasaravakkam, Chennai. His father-T.S.Jayaraman and mother-Manjula died intestate on 29.04.2013 and 12.05.2016 respectively leaving their only son J.Karthik as legal heir. After their demise, he was under the care and custody of Mrs.L.Saraswathi, who is the sister of his mother-Manjula. He is suffering from a mental disorder known as mild mental retardation and in that regard, Assistant Professor (Civil Assistant Surgeon) Department of Psychiatry, Government Kilpauk Medical College, has also issued the Disability Certificate dated 21.07.2016 and the same is also annexed in the additional typed set of papers filed by the appellant.

4. Whileso, due to old age of Mrs.L.Saraswathi (now 82 years old), her daughter/appellant herein has moved M.H.O.P.No.177 of 2017 under Sections 52 to 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) before the learned Principal District Court, Tiruvallur, seeking to appoint her as Guardian for the mentally retarded ill-person/J.Karthik including for maintenance of his property, Bank Account and to withdraw the family pension and other Government benefits till his mental condition is cured. Learned Court below, vide order dated 27.02.2018, allowed the petition appointing the appellant herein as Guardian of the mentally retarded person-J.Karthik, and also permitted her to operate the bank accounts of mentally retarded person. Therefore, from the date of her appointment as guardian, the appellant has been operating his savings bank account with Indian Overseas Bank, Virugambakkam and Valasaravakkam Branch, and also has been receiving family pension and other Government benefits on behalf of mentally ill-person. Moreover, the property of his parents, namely, the land and building at No.69, Appar Street, 2nd Cross street, 1st Floor, Kamakodi Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-87, inherited by the mentally ill person-J.Karthik, also has to be maintained by the appellant herein as Guardian of mentally ill-person. Initially, the property in question was purchased by J.Karthik's mother from one Mr.N.P.Audiseshan and Mr.N.P.Thirugana Sambandamoorthy, by way of a sale deed dated 08.03.1973 vide Document No.7344/1973 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Kodambakkam. Subsequently, mentally illperson's mother constructed ground floor in the year 1980 and the first floor in the year 1993. However, after the death of his parents, he became the absolute owner of the property in question and the appellant herein has been taking care of the mentally illperson Mr.J.Karthik for about 2 ½ years.

5. When the matter stood as above, now, the appellant herein has filed three Interlocutory Applications, namely, I