Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 770
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
PHILOMINA @ AMMINI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 24897/2016
The decision underscores the necessity to expedite decisions on guardianship for persons with disabilities to facilitate property transactions in their best interests.
Headnote:
Disability - Sale Deed - National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 - Court directed the first respondent to decide on the legal guardianship certificate application within six weeks, supporting the interests of the mentally disabled daughter in property transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to sell property transferred to his daughter, who has mental disabilities. Registration of sale was denied due to concerns about the daughter's ability to execute the deed, prompting a petition for a decision on the guardianship application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's request for a decision on the guardianship application, acknowledging the absence of a timely response from the first respondent, thus facilitating the interests of the daughter.
Issues: Whether the first respondent should be directed to make a timely decision regarding the legal guardianship application for the mentally disabled daughter to proceed with the sale of property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prioritizing the welfare of individuals with mental disabilities in legal transactions and ensured administrative decisions align with statutory provisions for their protection.
Final Decision: Writ petition is disposed of with direction to decide on the application within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner transferred 2.83 Ares of property to the name of his daughter, Rose Fostin, as per Ext.P1 Settlement Deed. According to the petitioner, petitioner is looking after her daughter, who has some mental disability. In order to protect the interest of petitioner's daughter, petitioner has decided to sell out the said property. When Exts.P3 and P4 were prepared and submitted for registration, 2nd respondent refused to register the same on the ground that, petitioner's daughter is not mentally fit to execute the Sale Deed, and directed to produce the legal guardianship certificate from the 1st respondent. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 application along with Ext.P5 disability certificate before the 1st respondent. However, according to the petitioner, in spite of the pendency of the application from 19.7.2016, 1st respondent has not taken a decision on the same and since the subject matter requires urgent consideration, a direction is required from this court to take a final decision on Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth and I am satisfied that, a direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in terms of the provisions of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act , 1999.
Accordingly I do so.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
