Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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