MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Karnatka High Court Upholds Appointment of Psychiatrist to Assess Plaintiff’s Mental Capacity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, the appointment of a psychiatrist to ascertain the mental capacity of the plaintiff has been upheld. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh on 21st July 2023, revolves around an appeal filed under Section 76 of the Mental Health Act, 1987.

The case, M.F.A. No.4815/2021 (MH), involved a dispute over the alienation of property by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 without seeking court permission or appointing a guardian. The plaintiff, T. Sheshadri, represented by a next friend, claimed to be of unsound mind and incapable of understanding things due to a mental disorder.

The Trial Court, in its order dated 15.09.2021, allowed the plaintiff’s application under Section 50(1) and (4) of the Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application sought the appointment of a Senior Psychiatrist or a Psychologist to assess the plaintiff’s mental condition and submit a report.

The appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 50(2) of the Mental Health Act, which requires personal examination of the alleged mentally ill person by the Court and obtaining a report from the concerned health authority.

However, Justice H.P. Sandesh rejected this argument, stating, “Compliance with Section 50 of the Act is evident as the Court called for a report from NIMHANS and provided an opportunity for the defendants to cross-examine witnesses after receiving the expert report.”

Furthermore, the appellant contended that relief should have been sought under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Court, however, held that the 2017 Act was not applicable in this case as it was filed before the repeal of the old Act.

The judgment affirms the Trial Court’s decision to obtain an expert report to assess the plaintiff’s mental capacity and rejects the appeal. The Trial Court has been directed to dispose of the matter within one year from the date of the judgment.

Date of Decision: 21st July, 2023

SHESHADRI vs SRINIVASA PRAKASH,

Latest Legal News