USHA Vs. CHITERLEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 76 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") against impugned judgment and decree, dtd. 19/12/2023, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., whereby the petition filed by Chiterlekha (respondent No. 1 herein) under Ss. 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 petitionerSmt. Chiterlekha, who was sister of appellant-Smt. Usha, daughter of Shri Ganga Singh, filed a petition before the learned Trial Court under Ss. 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.

(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-Smt. Rooklekha were looking after and taking care of Miss Usha and her mother. It was also averred that the petitioner and proforma respondent remained out of town in connection with their services and they had no occasion to look after the appellant and the suit filed in the year 1995 was manipulated with a view to create evidence in their favour. As per the replying respondents, the construction of the house was also done with the consent and permission of late Smt. Chandersheela and the respondents have no interest adverse to that of Miss Usha. The ownership of the appellant in the property to the extent of 1/6th share was admitted and other contents were denied. It was submitted that the petitioner had interest adverse to that of the appellant and, therefore, she cannot be appointed as guardian or manager. Lastly, dismissal of the petition was sought.