Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

FAO No. 33 of 2024

Reserved on: 16.04.2026 Date of decision: 11.05.2026

________________________________________________ Usha …..Appellant.

Versus Chiterlekha & others …..Respondents. _______________________ _________ ________________

Coram t The Hon'ble Mr. Justrice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the appellant: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

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

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2026 07:11:56 :::CIS

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

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

::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2026 07:11:56 :::CIS

3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

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 1/6^th 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

::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2026 07:11:56 :::CIS

4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

that Manager was required to be appointed to look after the

properties of Miss Usha after the death of her mother. A prayer was