Where Conflicting Property Claims Exist, Only an Independent Guardian Ensures Fairness — Bombay High Court Appoints Court Officer as Guardian Ad Litem

“Courts Cannot Become Instruments for Evidence Collection in Property Disputes Disguised as Mental Health Allegations” — Bombay High Court ruled on two critical interim applications in an intricate family partition dispute. The Court rejected the request for a fresh medical examination of the elderly defendant, PC (D3), while appointing an independent Court Officer as guardian ad litem under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to represent her interests in the pending suit.

“This is a case where serious and competing property claims exist within a family unit,” Justice Jamadar observed. “Where allegations of undue influence and conflicting interests swirl around, appointing any family member as a guardian would corrode neutrality — hence, only an independent officer of the Court can protect the incapacitated defendant's interests.”

Court Opens With an Emphatic Principle on Guardianship in Litigation

At the heart of the dispute were allegations that PC (D3), an elderly mother, had been manipulated into executing transfers of valuable joint family properties under the purported cloud of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, with plaintiffs demanding a fresh medical evaluation and the appointment of an administrator for her person and property. In parallel, SD (D5), the daughter of PC (D3), sought to be appointed as guardian citing caregiving responsibilities.

Justice Jamadar’s order crystallized a key judicial principle:
“Guardianship in pending civil proceedings must guarantee the purity of representation — neutrality cannot be compromised when adverse interests over property are in sharp contest.”

A Partition Suit Drenched in Allegations of Coercion and Property Misappropriation

The plaintiffs, coparceners of the Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (ADC) HUF, sought dissolution of the HUF and partition of substantial immovable properties, claiming several transfers and gifts executed by PC (D3) and her late husband ADC (D2) were vitiated by their alleged mental infirmity. The plaintiffs accused the defendants, especially SD (D5), of orchestrating property transfers through undue influence, taking advantage of PC (D3)’s failing mental faculties, as evidenced by references to Alzheimer’s/dementia in hospital records.

Opposing these claims, SD (D5) not only denied the allegations but sought judicial affirmation of her de facto role as guardian, claiming the plaintiffs had neglected PC (D3) while she and her brother VC (D4) cared for her in her twilight years.

“Medical Examination Cannot Serve as a Fishing Expedition into Past Mental States” — Court Refuses Medical Test

Rejecting the plaintiffs’ prayer for a medical examination, the Court sharply noted:
“A Court cannot direct medical evaluation merely to aid one party in proving historical claims over disputed transactions… such an order would impermissibly make the Court an agent of evidence collection.”

Justice Jamadar emphasized the established limitation that:
“A party cannot be compelled to undergo medical testing to assist the adversary in building a case. If the plaintiffs wish to challenge the validity of past transactions, they must do so through regular evidence, not compelled medical tests.”

The Court underlined the futility of conducting a medical test now to determine mental capacity during transactions executed several years ago, stating,
“Such retrospective determination by current examination stands on dubious footing and serves no worthwhile forensic purpose.”

“Where Family Members Stand Accused of Misappropriation, They Are Unfit to Be Guardians” — Court Rejects SD (D5)’s Application

On the crucial issue of who should act as guardian for PC (D3), the Court resolutely declined the plea of SD (D5), the defendant accused of benefiting from the very transactions under challenge.

Justice Jamadar highlighted:
“The law bars appointing as guardian a person whose interests conflict with those of the person to be represented… Even the mere possibility of bias or adverse interest disqualifies such an appointment.”

The Court specifically observed,
“The record demonstrates that SD (D5) not only acted under power of attorney but also directly benefited from property transfers and alterations in banking arrangements concerning PC (D3)… In such circumstances, appointment of SD (D5) would inherently jeopardize objectivity.”

Consequently, the Court invoked Rule 4 of Order 32 CPC, concluding,
“Neutrality in representation is paramount; hence, a Court Officer — Master and Assistant Prothonotary — is appointed as guardian ad litem of PC (D3), ensuring an impartial shield over her litigation interests.”

 “Issue of General Guardianship Remains Open Under Specialized Statutes”

Justice Jamadar clarified that his ruling was strictly confined to appointment for representation in the ongoing partition suit. The broader question of general guardianship under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, remained undecided.

“This Court’s inquiry was limited to representation in this suit under Order 32 Rule 15… adjudication on appointment of a general guardian over the person or properties of PC (D3) must await appropriate proceedings under specialized laws,” the judgment concluded.

Court Balances Equity and Legal Procedure in Complex Family Dispute

In a case woven around contested family dynamics, allegations of undue influence, and significant joint family wealth, the Bombay High Court struck a judicious balance: ensuring fair representation for an allegedly incapacitated party while refusing to convert interim applications into discovery tools.

Justice Jamadar’s ruling stands as a marker on the importance of independence in guardianship appointments during contentious litigation and the judicial restraint exercised in ordering intrusive inquiries like medical examinations.

Date of Decision: 04 July 2025