AMIT TOPPO Vs. NONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant as petitioner filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela under sections 52 and 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 praying to be appointed as guardian of the person and property of one Deepak Toppo. By order dated 18.1.2011, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application, which was registered as Guardian Misc. Case No. 59 of 2007.

(2.) The appellant's case before the learned court below was that said Deepak Toppo is a mentally ill person being a Christian male aged about 29 years who was born on 7.3.1982. His father and mother are both dead and since the death of his parents, the said Deepak Toppo is being maintained under the care and custody of the appellant, who is the son of Deepak's maternal aunt, i.e., mother's sister. He has no other suitable person other than the appellant to look after him for which the appellant prayed to be appointed as guardian in respect of his property both moveable and immovable as well as his person. A proclamation was made by the learned Civil Judge inviting objections, if any, in the said Guardian Misc. Case No. 59 of 2007. The said Misc. Case was once dismissed on 30.6.2008 against which the appellant approached this Court in FAO No. 539 of 2008. This Court by order dated 8.7.2010 passed in the said FAO, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This Court further observed that it is open for the appellant to adduce further evidence in support of his claim, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merit and in accordance with law.

(3.) After remand, the learned Civil Judge again heard the matter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The learned trial court in the impugned order on analyzing the facts of the case came to the conclusion that provision of section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 which speaks of appointment of guardian for the welfare of the minor cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as the said Deepak Toppo is a major. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge referred to sections 52 and 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 and more specifically referring to the definition of a"mentally ill" person as defined in section 2 (1) of the said Act, came to the following conclusion:-