ORDER :

1. These Interim Applications, inter alia, revolve around the state of health of PC (D3) and the necessity of appointment of a guardian ad litem for PC (D3).

2. Since in IA No.708 of 2023, the application was pursued in respect of prayer clauses (b) and (c); seeking a direction for medical examination of PC (D3) and appointment of fit and proper person as an administrator to administer the affairs of PC (D3) under the supervision of this Court, including to act as a guardian of PC (D3), and in IA No.133 of 2024, SD (D5) seeks her appointment as the guardian of the person and properties of PC (D3) both the applications were heard together and are being determined by this common order.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

3. AC (P1) is the son of ADC (D2). PC (D3) is the mother of AC (P1). VC (D4) and SD (D5) are the brother and sister, respectively, of AC (P1). AVC (D6) and SAC (D7) are the children of VC (D4). AVC – HUF (D1) is the HUF which was managed and run by its Karta ADC (D2). PC (P2) is the son of AC (P1).

4. AC (P1) and PC (P2) have instituted the suit in their capacity as the coparceners of ADC - HUF (D1) seeking dissolution of the said HUF and partition of the properties of the said HUF in accordance with the assertion that the Plaintiffs, ADC (D2) and Defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the coparceners of ADC – HUF (D1). Since 1980, various properties were acquired by utilizing the funds of ADC – HUF (D1) in the names of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and Defendant Nos.9 to 15 (HUF Companies).

5. Differences arose between the Plaintiffs, on the one part, and Defendant Nos.2 to 7, on the other part, as the Defendants surreptitiously disposed off various HUF properties, including the bank accounts and shares in HUF Companies by entering into various deeds, mis-utilizing the Power of Attornies and taking undue advantage of the failing mental health of PC (D3).

6. It was, inter alia, asserted that the even ADC (D2) was suffering from ailments, which deprived him of the power of independent judgment. Taking undue advantage of the precarious physical and mental health of ADC (D2) and PC (D3), it was alleged, Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have dissipated or otherwise usurped ADC HUF’s properties.

7. The Plaintiffs have, thus, prayed for dissolution of ADC – HUF (D1); a declaration that the properties enlisted in Exhibit U to the plaint, are the properties of ADC – HUF (D1); ADC – HUF (D1) has interest in the Companies enlisted in Exhibit V; direct the Defendants to render accounts of the transactions in relation to HUF properties; declare that the Gift Deed dated 15 November 2014, whereby ADC (D2) and PC (D3) have purportedly gifted their 12.5% each in favour of VC (D4) as null, void and inoperative. Pending the final hearing and disposal, the Plaintiffs have also sought appointment of Medical Officers / team to examine PC (D3) and submit a report of examination to the Court.

IA No.708 of 2023

8. It would be necessary to immediately note that in IA No.708 of 2023, the Plaintiffs have sought diverse interim reliefs apart from the directions for the medical examination of ADC (D2) and PC (D3). By an order dated 20 August 2018, this Court declined to grant ad-interim relief. Thereafter, the Defendants, including ADC (D2), filed affidavits in reply in opposition to the prayers in the Interim Application. ADC (D2) passed away on 7 November 2022. Thus, the prayer clauses (b) and (c) in IA No.708 of 2023 remain confined to PC (D3).

9. In IA No.708 of 2023, in the context of the prayer of the medical examination of, and appointment of an administrator/guardian for, PC (D3), it was asserted that PC (D3) has been suffering from Alzheimer / Dementia and was not in a position to take independent and rational decisions. PC (D3) was legally incapable of entering into any contract whatsoever. When PC (D3) was admitted in Breach Candy Hospital, it was recorded in the medical case history that PC (D3) was a known case of Alzheimer / Dementia. Thus, the Plaintiffs aver, PC (D