RAJIV S. SOMANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the order dtd. 11/5/2022 passed by the Revenue Minister in Revision Application bearing Nos.RTS-2820/Pr.Kr.151/J-4A, RTS-2821/Pr.Kr.373/J-4A and RTS2821/Pr.Kr.374/J-4A, filed under Sec. 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (for short "MLRC").

(2.) The facts as they appear from the petition as well affidavit-inreply sought to be contended by rival parties can be narrated in brief as under :

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner took care and looked after Mrs. Lukmani from time to time and also has rendered financial assistance to her. It is claimed by the petitioner that out of love and affection for him, Mrs. Lukmani executed a gift deed in his favour in respect of subject properties ie. beach house and her undivided share in the lands situated at Alibaug. He further claimed that he accepted the gift and also took possession of the subject properties. Thus, according to him, the gift stood complete under Mohammedan law. It is his further case that respondent No.6 claimed execution of a Will by Mrs. Lukmani in his favour on 21/5/2013 and a certificate was duly appended to the said Will indicating her sound physical and mental health to execute the said document. Respondent No.6 also claimed that she executed a power of attorney authorising him to manage her properties, investments, bank accounts etc.. According to the petitioner, Mrs. Lukmani not only filed suit against respondent No.6 for cancellation of power of attorney as well as documents but has also filed criminal complaint against him. Respondent No.6 filed petition bearing No.4 of 2015 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai under Mental Health Act 1987 (for short "the Act"). He sought appointment to himself as guardian of his mother-Mrs.Lukmani under Sec. 53 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, came to be challenged before this Court successfully and the said order of appointment of respondent No.6 as guardian was set-aside, on the ground that medical certificate is not reliable. This order is also confirmed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court.