| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5633 2024 SLD 5633 2024 MLD 1455 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 18523 of 2022, decided on 30th March, 2022.
Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J
Ghulam Farid Sanotra for Petitioner.
C.R. No. 18523 of 2022, decided on 30th March, 2022.
Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J
Ghulam Farid Sanotra for Petitioner.
AZHAR ALI---Petitioner
VERSUS
KHALID IQBAL and others---Respondents
Law: Mental Health Ordinance, 2001
Section: 29, 32 & 36
Mental Health Ordinance (VIII of 2001)--- ----Ss. 29, 32 & 36---Property belonging to mentally disordered person---Fraud--Plaintiff and respondent filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and mutation, mandatory injunction on the grounds that their predecessor was owner of the suit property but was mentally disordered person and that the defendants/ petitioners got transferred the suit property in their favour fraudulently through registered sale deed---Defendants/petitioners filed contesting written statement, pleaded normal health of vendor and genuinity of sale transaction---Trial Court decreed the suit and appellate Court dismissed the appeal---Validity---Admittedly, on 01.10.2011 the respondents Nos.1 to 10/ plaintiffs filed an application under Ss.29 & 32 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, before the District and Sessions Judge, for declaring predecessor /father of respondents Nos.1 to 10/plaintiffs and respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) as a mentally disordered person---Respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) filed contesting reply to the said application---District Court vide order dated 13.12.2012, by accepting the application, appointed respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii) as managers of the person and properties of mentally disordered person---Said application was filed on 01.10.2011, whereas the sale deed No.463/1 was registered on 02.11.2011 and mutation No.2263 was sanctioned on 19.11.2011 i.e. during the pendency of the said application---Matter regarding alienation of suit land by the respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii)/defendants in favour of the petitioner/defendant came before the Court of Protection, who in that regard observed that the validity of the alienation/transaction would be determined by the Civil Court---Moreover, under S.36 of the Ordinance it was mandatory for respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii), being the managers of the mentally disordered person, to file application before the Court of Protection in order to obtain permission for sale/transfer of the suit land of the mentally disordered person but neither any application was filed nor any permission was obtained by the petitioner or respondents Nos.11(i) & (ii)/defendants, from the Court of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492