IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1319 of 2008(F) ------------------------- I.A.No.517/06 IN O.P.No.(MHA).165/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI OP.12957/98 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL RAHIMAN, THRIKKANDIYOOR AMSOM, KUMNBARAMANGALAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.MUHAMMED ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O.SAYYID MOOPPAN, KAINIKKARA HOUSE, THRIKKANDIYOOR, TIRUR-1. 2. M.SAINABA, DO. 3. M.SAIDU, DO. 4. K.SALIM, DO. 5. THOOMPATH EDAQTHANAD THITTIKUTTY, THRIKKANDIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1319 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the District Judge Manjeri, in IA 517/06 in OP (MHA) 165/97. The dispute centers around the management of the property belonging to a mentally retarded person namely Ayishumma. The history of the case would reveal that this court by its first order appointed the present 1st respondent as well as another brother by name Kainikkara Saidalikutty Haji as the joint receivers of the property. This court also directed that they have to manage the property and submit true accounts. Unfortunately, thereafter Saidalikutty Haji died. The present writ petitioner was the 2nd petitioner in the original case. Since he was not a direct brother but only a child through the brother or sister, this court found it proper to appoint only the brothers. The court also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property is to be managed by a joint receivership and not by a single receivership. Thereafter petitions were again moved and ultimately the impugned order is passed whereby the district court declined to appoint the 2nd petitioner in the original case, who is the only petitioner in IA, as a joint receiver for the reason that there had been strong objections. The court however permitted the 1st respondent namely Mohammed Abdulrahiman to function WPC NO.1319/08 2 as a joint receiver and to comply with the directions of this court. The court below also directed the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent to submit a list of receivers for consideration. It has to be borne in mind that the refusal to appoint the present writ petitioner in the writ as well as in the IA at that point of time was on account of the fact that there were two brothers of this alleged mentally ill person, who can do the things better. Now, the situation has changed. The parties now proposed to be appointed are the children of the brother and sister, as the case may be, who is competent and who can be relied upon. Why should the court take out one person alone in isolation and say that he is excluded on account of strong opposition. Even if there is a strong opposition what the court has to consider is whether there are any disqualifications for that person to become a joint receiver. It is in that perspective the matter has to be looked into. It is true that the learned District Judge has sought up for a panel of persons to be submitted by the petitioner and the 1st respondent. A perusal of the writ petition would show that the 1st respondent has submitted the panel and also filed an affidavit linking the relationship between the parties. 2. So I direct the court below to consider the entire mater afresh and not to exclude petitioner from the sphere of consideration. After considering the entire materials placed by the parties, the court shall select one of them, which includes the petitioner also and appoint joint receiver WPC NO.1319/08 3 along with the 1st respondent. I am not going to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent as a joint receiver for the reason that he is the most closely related person. It is also a settled position. Suppose there are materials available to show that he is acting against the interest of the person, then law envisages a situation for removal of him as well. Therefore I modify the order passed by the court below and direct the court below to take in the writ petitioner, who is present before him in IA 517/06 also, in the sphere of consideration for appointment as a joint receiver and pass appropriate orders taking into account the welfare of the alleged mentally ill person and her properties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO.1319/08 4