SHIVAMMA SHANKAR WALE Vs. RAMESH VIRPAKSHAPPA WALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is preferred by the original opponent to challenge the cancellation of the Order appointing her as a guardian of her husband under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 ('Lunacy Act'). By order dtd. 27/3/1980, the appellant's Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1977 filed under Sec. 62 of the Lunacy Act was allowed, and the appellant was appointed as guardian of her husband Shivshankar Wale ('Shivshankar'). The respondent filed an application under Sec. 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ('the 1987 Act') for cancelling the guardianship order issued in the appellant's name and prayed for directing the appellant to submit accounts of the properties of Shivshankar. Respondent's application is allowed by the impugned order. The respondent is the son of Shivshankar's brother.

(2.) The appellant is the wife of Shivshankar. Due to his insanity, he was unable to look after himself and his property. Hence, the appellant applied Sec. 62 of the Lunacy Act. Shivshankar's mother and two brothers opposed the said application. After considering the objections raised to the appellant's application, the application was allowed on 27/3/1980, and the appellant was appointed as guardian of the person and property of Shivshankar. Based on the guardianship order, the appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession against Shivshankar's mother and two brothers. The said suit was decreed, and Shivshankar was granted his one-third share.

(3.) Shivshankar's mother and brothers had preferred an appeal challenging the partition decree. The appeal was dismissed, and the partition decree was confirmed. The decree was challenged in this court by filing Second Appeal No. 260 of 1989. In the meantime, Shivshankar expired in 1990. Hence, the appellants in the second appeal had filed an application to bring on record the names of Shivshankar's wife and two daughters as heirs and legal representatives of Shivshankar. However, the said application was allowed to be withdrawn with a clarification that if information regarding Shivshankar was available, the appellants in the second appeal were granted liberty to file a fresh application. Inspite of the liberty granted, no such application was filed in the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal stood abated. Thus, by Order dtd. 16/1/2025, the second appeal is dismissed as abated.