Usha Wd/o Late Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Vs Chiterlekha D/o Sh. Ganga Singh

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

FAO No. 33 of 2024

¶4

Reserved on: 16.04.2026 Date of decision: 11.05.2026

¶5

________________________________________________ Usha …..Appellant. Versus Chiterlekha & others …..Respondents. ________________________________ _______________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶11

Act was allowed, with a prayer to set-aside the impugned judgment and decree.

¶12

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 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

¶13

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

¶14

the mother of the appellant and these two persons, which was decided in the year 1996. In this manner, the interest of

¶15

3

¶16

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶17

respondents No. 2-Smt. Aruna @ Rinku and Shri Ashish Kumar @ Tinku, who were legal heirs of late Shri Tejasvi

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

4

¶24

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶25

that Manager was required to be appointed to look after the properties of Miss Usha after the death of her mother. A prayer was also made that the petitioner be appointed as guardian of Miss Usha (appellant) under Section 50 of the Act and she be permitted to manage the properties and accounts of the appellant under Section 54of the Act.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

5

¶29

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶30

evidence in their favour. As per the replying respondents, the construction of the house was also done with the consent

¶31

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 1/6^th share was admitted and other contents were denied.

¶32

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.

¶33

The petitioner filed the rejoinder reaffirming the averments made in her petition and denied the stand taken in the reply by respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶34

On 04.03.2014, the learned Trial Court, upon the

¶35

pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

¶36

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a legal guardian of Miss Usha, for her welfare and protection of her interest, who is mentally unsound and incapable of taking care of herself, as prayed for? OPP

¶37

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

¶38

Whether the petitioner has no locusstandi to file the present petition? OPR

¶39

6

¶40

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶41

Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

¶42

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition? OPR

¶43

Relief.”

¶44

The learned Trial Court, after hearing the learned

¶45

counsel for the parties, allowed the petition and the petitioner-Smt. Chiterlekha was appointed as guardian of Smt. Usha-appellant and she was also appointed as Manager under Section 54 of the Act. Hence, the instant appeal filed by the appellant-Smt. Usha, with a prayer to setaside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.1 is not a suitable person to act as a guardian and manager of the property of mentally ill person Kumari Usha and to discharge powers and duties of guardian, as she herself is an old and infirm lady of more than 88 years and even incapable of taking care of herself.

¶47

He further contended that the appellant ought to have been considered as a suitable person to be appointed as guardian

¶48

and manager of the properties of Miss Usha, as she is not

¶49

7

¶50

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶51

having any adverse interest against her, whereas respondent

¶52

No. 1 is having adverse interest against Miss Usha.

¶53

Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and contended that the learned Trial Court passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not need any interference and the appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed.

¶54

I have heard the learned Counsel for the

¶55

appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the entire records.

¶56

10 The perusal of the record reveals that Miss Usha is not able to take care of herself on account of her mental

¶57

illness, as is clear from the report of the team of medical experts. As per Section 53 of the Act, where the mentally ill person is incapable of taking care of herself, the District Court or where a direction has been issued under subsection (2) of Section 54 of the Act, the Collector of District may appoint any suitable person to be his/her guardian.

¶58

Now, the question, which arises for consideration

¶59

before this Court is as to whether respondent No. 1 is not a suitable person to be appointed as a guardian of Miss Usha

¶60

8

¶61

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶62

and also manager of her property, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has specifically been averred by respondent No. 1 in her petition that earlier Miss Usha was looked after and taken care of by her mother Smt. Chandersheela and now Smt. Chandersheela has expired, therefore, she be appointed as guardian, as she had been looking after and taking care of her after the death of Smt. Chandersheela. The petitioner herself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, and also placed on record copy of judgment and decree sheet, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C, respectively. Ex. PW-1/B, i.e., copy of judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nahan, in a suit for injunction, which was filed on behalf of Miss Usha, mentally ill person through her next friend, the present petitioner-Smt. Chiterlekha and proforma respondent Smt. Rooplekha, both sisters of mentally ill person against respondents No. 2 and 3 and son of Smt. Usha, namely Prikshit. The suit was decreed by the Court and it was found that the interest of mentally ill person was watched by Smt. Chiterlekha and Rooplekha, whereas the respondents have adverse interest and the suit was decreed and they were restrained from causing any

¶63

9

¶64

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶65

interference in the suit property.

¶66

The petitioner (respondent No. 1herein) has

¶67

placed on record copy of another judgment, Ex. PA, which is also material, and its decree sheet is Ex. PB. On close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the judgment was passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, in the year 1996 and the suit was filed on behalf of Miss Usha, by her mother, the natural guardian Smt. Chandershela against the original respondent No. 2, Tejeshwi, who had expired during the proceedings and he was represented by his daughter Aruna and son Ashish Kumar. The said suit was for mandatory injunction, wherein direction was sought to get back the vacant possession of four rooms of the house belonging to Miss Usha and in the wrongful possession of Shri Tejeshwi. The said suit was not contested by Shri Tejeshwi and it was ultimately decreed and decree sheet is Ex. PB. The record nowhere shows that this judgment was challenged in appeal and was set-aside by the Court. Therefore, it is proved that Shri Tejeshwi, the brother of Miss Usha, had forcibly occupied four rooms of the house having been allotted to Miss Usha, and possession thereof had to be obtained by filing a suit. Thus it stands proved that

¶68

10

¶69

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶70

Shri Tejeshwi had adverse interest towards Miss Usha right from the beginning and now when Shri Tejeshwi has expired

¶71

he is represented by his legal heirs, i.e., Aruna and Ashish Kumar.

¶72

It is clear from the statement of the petitionerSmt. Chiterlekha that she had been looking after Kumari Usha, especially after the death of their mother Smt. Chandersheela. On the contrary, Smt. Usha wife of late Shri Shiv Raj Singh has appeared in the witness-box as PW-3,

¶73

but her statement cannot be relied upon to the effect that she was having very good relations with Smt. Chandersheela as Smt. Chandersheela has been in litigation with her and her brother as is clear from the copies of judgments already discussed hereinabove.

¶74

Since the petitioner-Smt. Chiterlekha has been able to establish that she was looking after Kumari Usha after the death of her mother, Smt. Chandersheela and she has no adverse interest against her, therefore, she is the best person who can be appointed as guardian so that she is able to take care of Kumari Usha as she is not able to take care of herself. So far as Smt. Usha widow of Shri Shiv Raj Singh is concerned, there is litigation with her with respect to

¶75

11

¶76

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶77

the property of Kumari Usha and it is, therefore, clear that her interest is adverse to that of Kumari Usha. Reference

¶78

can be made to the copy of judgment, Ex. PW-1/B. Shri Tejeshwi, the predecessor in interest of Smt. Aruna and Shri Ashish was also having adverse interest to Kumari Usha and suit for mandatory injunction was filed against him, which is clear from the copy of judgment and his son and daughter have also not come forward to claim that they were looking after Kumari Usha and they could look after and watch her interest in a better manner. Moreover, the appellant-Smt. Usha widow of Shri Shiv Raj Singh never contested the application before the learned Trial Court and now it does not lie in her mouth that respondent No. 1 is not a suitable person to be appointed as a guardian of Miss Usha and also manager of her property. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly appointed respondent No. 1-Smt. Chiterlekha as guardian of Kumari Usha and also as manager to look-after her properties.

¶79

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove,

¶80

the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court. The appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

¶81

12

¶82

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:15745 )

¶83

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)

¶84

disposed of.

¶85

( Sushil Kukreja )

¶86

11^th May, 2026