Sections 53 and 54 of Mental Health Act, 1987= In the impugned order, the Court below found that the appellant herein has no locus standi to file O.P.No.673 of 1999 as much as he is not having blood relation with the alleged lunatic Brahmaraju and the fifth respondent is the wife of Brahmaraju and the said Brahmaraju is a deaf and dumb person. Further, the mother and sister of the said lunatic are also alive. In view of aforesaid reasons recorded by the Court below in the impugned order, we do not find any ground to entertain this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at this point of time.

CMA 768 / 2013

CMASR 14616 / 2003

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
K.SURJYANARAYANA  VSNAMA LAKSHMI & 4 ORS
PET.ADV. : NIRANJAN REDDYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: MATRIMONIAL CASESDISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM
published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/cma/cma_768_2013.html
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768  of  2013

ORDER: (per RSR, J)
          This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.673 of 1999, aggrieved of order, dated 10.01.2003 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

          The appellant herein filed aforesaid O.P. under Sections 53 and 54 of Mental Health Act, 1987 seeking custody of Sri Nama Brahmaraju, Son of Peddiraju and to appoint him as Manager to manage the estate of the said lunatic. 
The Court below mainly on the ground that the mother and sister of the said
mentally ill person are very much alive, refused to give custody of the said lunatic to the appellant herein and dismissed the O.P. by the impugned order.

          This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed in 2003, but, one reason or the other, same could not be numbered and later, it was numbered and is listed today.

          Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order.

          In the impugned order, the Court below found that the appellant herein has no locus standi to file O.P.No.673 of 1999 as much as he is not having blood relation with the alleged lunatic Brahmaraju and the fifth respondent is the wife of Brahmaraju and the said Brahmaraju is a deaf and dumb person. Further, the mother and sister of the said lunatic are also alive.

In view of aforesaid reasons recorded by the Court below in the impugned order, we do not find any ground to entertain this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at this point of time.

          In that view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that with regard to the properties, the issue is left open to the parties to work out the remedies available under law. No order as to costs.

           Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J


16th SEPTEMBER, 2013.
_________________
                                                                         A.V.SESHA SAI, J

kvni

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515