Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Bombay High Court Declines Medical Examination of Elderly Woman Amid Inheritance Row | Appoints Court Officer as Guardian Ad-Litem to Avoid Conflict of Interest

Bombay High Court Declines Medical Examination of Elderly Woman Amid Inheritance Row | Appoints Court Officer as Guardian Ad-Litem to Avoid Conflict of Interest

Safiya Malik

 

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar directed the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a party incapable of safeguarding her legal interests due to mental infirmity. In the context of a partition suit involving multiple family members, the Court held that the person concerned could not be considered capable of protecting her interest, citing advanced age and declining mental faculties. However, the Court declined the plaintiffs' request for a medical examination, holding that such an evaluation would amount to collection of evidence and that the plaintiffs could present supporting material at the trial stage.

 

In rejecting the plea for medical evaluation, the Court stated that the current mental state of the party could not reliably demonstrate her condition at the time contested transactions took place. It appointed a court officer as guardian ad litem to represent her in ongoing proceedings. The Court clarified that the question of appointing a general guardian under relevant statutes remains open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. Costs of the guardian are to be shared by the principal contesting parties.

 

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Hyatt’s Appeal On India Tax Liability | Says Foreign Entity’s Temporary Indian Base Creates Permanent Establishment

 

The proceedings arose in the context of a family dispute over the properties of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (ADC-HUF), with the plaintiffs seeking dissolution and partition of properties. The plaintiffs, son and grandson of Defendant No. 2, filed Suit No.1151 of 2019 claiming status as coparceners of ADC-HUF. They alleged that various properties were acquired by the HUF since 1980 using joint family funds but had been transferred or usurped by certain family members by taking advantage of the deteriorating health of Defendant No. 3 (PC), the mother of the first plaintiff.

 

Interim Application No. 708 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiffs’ seeking directions for medical examination of Defendant No. 3 and appointment of an administrator or guardian under court supervision. The plaintiffs claimed PC suffered from Alzheimer’s/Dementia and could not have made rational or independent decisions regarding her properties. They challenged various property transactions, including a gift deed dated 13 June 2018 transferring PC's share in a Pune bungalow to another family member (VC), asserting it was executed while PC was legally incapable.

 

In opposition, Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 and others filed affidavits denying the allegations of impaired mental health. They contended that such claims were made with an ulterior motive to harass PC and interfere with settled property transactions. The defendants stated that AC, the first plaintiff, had distanced himself from his parents and was now contesting valid transfers made years earlier.

 

A parallel application, IA No. 133 of 2024, was filed by SD (Defendant No. 5 and daughter of PC) seeking her appointment as guardian of PC. She argued that PC had been under her care since the death of her husband (ADC) and required ongoing assistance. The plaintiffs opposed this application, asserting that SD had an adverse interest due to her alleged role in usurping family assets and facilitating transactions detrimental to PC’s estate and the plaintiffs' rights.

 

Amidst conflicting affidavits and rival claims, the Court appointed the Official Assignee, Mrs. Bhat, to visit the residence of PC and report her condition. The report recorded that PC, approximately 85 years of age, was non-verbal, appeared sick, and required constant assistance for daily activities.

 

The plaintiffs relied on historical medical records and hospital admissions from 2016 and 2019 to argue that PC's diminished mental condition had persisted for years and predated the disputed transactions. They cited specific entries noting PC as a "known case of Alzheimer/Dementia."

 

The defendants, however, disputed these records, claiming the plaintiffs influenced the recorded history to build a case for invalidation of transactions. They stated that ADC had communicated with legal counsel and participated in mediation during the relevant period, indicating mental clarity.

 

The plaintiffs further relied on legal precedents including Dr. Stya Paul v. The State and Ors. and Somnath Dnyanoba Mahapure v. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu to argue that courts could direct medical evaluations when a party's mental fitness is in question.

 

The defendants, in contrast, cited Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and S. Anand v. A. Jeyabalan to oppose such inquiries, stating that courts could not assist parties in evidence collection and that retrospective assessments through present medical examinations are legally impermissible.

 

The Court observed, "The substratum of the application of the Plaintiffs... is that PC (D3) has been suffering from Alzheimer/Dementia since long and her condition has deteriorated over a period of time." It noted that the prayer for medical examination was not merely to establish present incapacity but to contest prior transactions as invalid due to mental infirmity.

 

"The Plaintiffs insist for medical examination of PC (D3) principally to establish its case that the co-Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have taken undue advantage of the unsound mind... and have, thereby, unjustly enriched themselves," the Court recorded.

 

Regarding Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court explained that the rule encompasses two scenarios: persons adjudged of unsound mind and those found by the court to be incapable due to mental infirmity. "If on the basis of the material placed on record or the examination of the person, the Court forms a prima facie opinion... such enquiry may be sufficient."

 

The Court referred to the report by the Official Assignee and stated, "PC (D3) appeared to be sick. She did not speak. She was not able to do anything on her own without the support and help of attendant." Citing the report and the relative consensus among parties about PC's inability, the Court concluded that medical evaluation was unnecessary.

 

"This Court did not consider it necessary to have further medical examination of PC (D3)."

 

It further observed, "Ordinarily, the Court cannot direct a party to undergo medical examination, unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy." It declined to accept the plaintiff's argument that current medical evaluation could assist in reconstructing the past state of mind relevant to earlier transactions.

 

"The exercise is fraught with infirmities as it amounts to roving inquiry... which prima facie appears to be in the corridor of uncertainty," the Court stated.

 

On the appointment of SD as guardian, the Court stated, "It would not be appropriate to appoint SD (D5) as a guardian of PC (D3)." The Court noted that SD had acted as Power of Attorney holder and had executed contested transactions, including registration of gift deeds and joint bank accounts.

 

"The appointment of SD(D3) as a guardian is fraught with the risk of loss of objectivity in the matter of representation of PC(D3)," the Court recorded.

 

Also Read: Caste Cannot Override Faith | Denial Of Temple Entry To Scheduled Castes Is An Affront To Dignity: Madras High Court

 

The Court issued the following orders: "Prayer clauses (b) and (c) of IA No.708 of 2023 stand rejected."

 

"IA No.133 of 2024 stands partly allowed to the following extent only:"

 

 

  1. "Guardian ad-litem is appointed to represent PC (D3) in the suit."
  1. "Ms. Charusheela Vaidya, Master and Assistant Prothonotary (Judicial) is appointed to act as a guardian ad-litem of PC (D3)."
  1. "The Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.4 and 5 shall bear the costs to be incurred by the guardian ad-litem."

 

The Court also clarified: "In these applications, this Court did not examine the larger issue as to whether a guardian of the person and property of PC(D3) is required to be appointed. For that purpose, a higher degree of proof... may be required."

 

It further noted, "The issue of appointment of a general guardian of PC(D3) is kept open for decision in an appropriate proceeding."

 

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Apurva Manwani and Ms. Vandana Mehta.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shraddha Chheda i/b Navdeep Vora and Associates; Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Ms. Akanksha Saxena i/b Ms. Sampada Mahadik

 

Case Title: Ajay Amarchand Chhabria and Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF) and Ors.

Case Number: Suit No.1151 of 2019 with IA Nos.708 of 2023 and 133 of 2024

Bench: Justice N.J. Jamadar

 

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!