Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether approved for reporting?

The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant-Smt. Usha, who was respondent No. 4 before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 76 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) against impugned judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., whereby the petition filed by Chiterlekha (respondent No. 1 herein) under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act was allowed, with a prayer to set-aside the impugned judgment and decree.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Smt. Chiterlekha, who was sister of appellant-Smt. Usha, daughter of Shri Ganga Singh, filed a petition before the learned Trial Court under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act, for her appointment as a guardian of Miss Usha (appellant herein) and Manager for her properties on the ground that the appellant was mentally unsound since her birth and was not able to take her care and her properties. As per the petitioner, earlier the appellant used to reside with her mother Smt. Chandersheela, who was also her natural guardian, but after her death, the appellant became totally incapable of taking care of herself and she was looked after by the petitioner and another sister of the petitioner, i.e., Smt. Roop Lekha (proforma respondent No. 5). The petitioner further averred in her petition that respondent No. 2 (Shri Tejasvi Singh son of Shri Ganga Singh, who had died) had deserted the appellant from the very beginning and he had no love and affection for her. A civil litigation started between the mother of the appellant and these two persons, which was decided in the year 1996. In this manner, the interest of respondents No. 2-Smt. Aruna @ Rinku and Shri Ashish Kumar @ Tinku, who were legal heirs of late Shri Tejasvi Singh son of Ganga Singh, are against the appellant. Respondents No. 2 and 3 wanted to grab the share of the appellant in connivance with one Shri Prikshit.

2(a). A suit for injunction was filed against respondents No. 2 and 3 by the appellant, which was decreed. The appellant was co-owner-in-possession of land comprised in khata khatauni No. 88/124 to 126, kite 12, measuring 185.20 square meters to the extent of 1/6th share, measuring 30.86 square meters situated at Mohal Rajinder Nagar and a three storeyed building was constructed on the same by her parents and it was used by the appellant and her deceased mother, as their residence. As respondents No. 2 and 3 had intention to grab the properties of the appellant, therefore, it was necessary that the appellant, who was mentally retarded, was looked after by someone, as she was unable to watch her interest and take care of her properties.

2(b). The petitioner also averred in her petition that there are some FDRs in the name of the appellant and the same are to be maintained, as the appellant cannot do the same on her own. In the aforesaid backdrop, it was averred that Manager was required to be appointed to look after the properties of Miss Usha after the death of her mother. A prayer was also made that the petitioner be appointed as guardian of Miss Usha (appellant) under Section 50 of the Act and she be permitted to manage the properties and accounts of the appellant under Section 54of the Act.

3. No one appeared on behalf of the General Public and respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the petition on the ground of maintainability of the petition, cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, the replying respondents denied the fact that the appellant was mentally unsound since her childhood and it was also denied that she resided with her mother earlier. It was averred that Smt. Usha was residing with them alongwith the old lady Smt. Chandersheela and they were served food, clothes and other articles of daily needs by them. It was denied that the petitioner and proforma respondent