JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 59 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. 2. On 11th January, 2013, the appellant, elder brother of Mukesh (respondent no.7) filed a petition for permission to transfer the property of respondent no.7 under Section 59 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. The averments made in the petition are as under:- 2.1. Mukesh (respondent no.7) is a mentally ill person with severe degree of mental retardation assessed as 75%. The appellant is looking after and managing respondent no.7. Copy of the disability certificate dated 13th August, 1999 issued by the Medical Board of Safdarjang Hospital assessing the permanent disability of Mukesh as 75% due to severe degree of mental retardation was annexed as Annexure B to the petition. 2.2. The appellant has been appointed as guardian for maintenance, residential care and management of properties of respondent no.7 by the Deputy Commissioner, North-West on 23rd December, 2006. The copy of the certificate dated 23rd December, 2006 was annexed as Annexure C to the petition. 2.3. Respondent no.7 is a permanent resident of H. No.281, Paana Tihaai, Mangol Pur Kalan, Delhi-110085. The ration card containing the address of the petitioner as well as respondent no.7 was placed on record as Annexure A to the petition. 2.4. Respondent no.7 is the owner of undivided 1/7th share in agricultural land measuring 155 bigha and 15 biswa in village Aawal, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana which was inherited by respondent no.7 along with the petitioner and respondents no.2 to 6 in equal shares. 2.5. The petitioner is taking care of respondent no.7 from the income out of the share of respondent no.7 in the above mentioned agricultural land. However, the expenses of maintenance has increased and the income from the agricultural land is not sufficient to bear the medical needs of respondent no.7 and therefore, the petitioner be permitted to sell the agricultural land. 2.6. The petitioner and respondents no.2 to 6 have already sold their share in the above mentioned property and only the share of respondent no.7 remains to be sold. Copy of the agreement was annexed as Annexure D to the petition. 3. The petition was taken up for consideration on 16th May, 2013, the Trial Court examined respondent no.7 who was unable to answer any question. Copy of the agreement was annexed as Annexure D to the petition. 3. The petition was taken up for consideration on 16th May, 2013, the Trial Court examined respondent no.7 who was unable to answer any question. Respondent No.7 was not in a position to even respond to the questions. The relevant portion of the statement of respondent No.7 recorded by the Trial Court is reproduced hereunder:- “Examination of mentally ill person/Mukesh s/o Late Sh. Narayan Singh & Late Smt. Dhanno Devi (u/s Section 50 of Mental Health Act) Q. What is your name? (no answer) Q. Who is the petitioner? (no answer) Q. Where do you live? (no answer) Q. With whom you came here? (no answer) Q. What is your age? (no answer) Q. How many brothers and sisters you have? (no answer) Q. Whether your parents are alive? (no answer) Q. Have you ever gone to hospital or doctor? (no answer) Q. Have you ever gone to school? (no answer) During the examination the mentally ill person could not answer any questions but was not even in a position to respond to the question asked to him. Petitioner who is stated to the elder brother of the mentally ill person stated that by birth he is in this condition and was treated by Safdarjung Hospital and he is having severe degree (sic) of Mental Retardation and disability certificate was issued by the Safdarjung Hospital and same has also been filed alongwith with the petition.” 4. On 16th May, 2013, after examining respondent no.7, the Trial Court directed the Medical Superintendent, Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) to have respondent no.7 examined by a Board of Doctors and the case was fixed for 24th August, 2013. Relevant portion of the order dated 16th May, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:- “The Ld. Medical Superintendent, IBHAS is further directed that Mukesh be examined by a Board of Doctors and the said report be placed on record within four weeks after such examination of Mukesh. Now, to come up for submission of report by the competent authority from IBHAS and further proceedings, on 24.08.13. Date is given as per the choice of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner. As prayed copy of the order be given dasti.” 5. Now, to come up for submission of report by the competent authority from IBHAS and further proceedings, on 24.08.13. Date is given as per the choice of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner. As prayed copy of the order be given dasti.” 5. Vide letter dated 24th August, 2013, IHBAS sought clarification with respect to the opinion sought whereupon vide order dated 5th September, 2013, the Trial Court directed the Medical Board to opine with respect to the current mental status and its implications and the fitness to take care of the property and self. Order dated 5th September, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:- “05.09.13 Present: Sh. Tarun Shokeen, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has stated that petitioner was referred to IHBAS and was examined and IHBAS has written letter dt.04.06.13 seeking further clarifications to file the report and in the said letter they have given certain options and fresh letter may kindly be issued to IHBAS specifying the purpose for which petition has been filed so that matter can be proceeded further. Heard. Considered. I have perused the record. The Ld. Medical Superintendent, IHBAS is further directed that Mukesh be examined by a Board of Doctors and the report with regard to the options at sr.no.1 & 3 (1. current mental status & its implications & 3 fitness to take care of property & self) as per their letter dt.04.06.13 be placed on record on or before next date of hearing. Now, to come up for submission of report by the competent authority from IHBAS and further proceedings, on 21.11.13. As prayed copy of the order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for petitioner for compliance as per rules.” 6. Vide report dated 7th November, 2013, IHBAS certified that respondent no.7 suffered from severe mental retardation with speech impairment and unable to take care of self and property. Relevant portion of the Medical Board report is reproduced hereunder:- “MEDICAL BOARD REPORT OF THE PATIENT MUKESH (CRF No.2013-05-26578) Court: Sh. Sunil Rana, Addl. District Judge-II, Room No.317, Third Floor, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Reference: Hon’ble Court order dated 05.09.2013 vide ref. No.03/13. The patient Mukesh was examined by the Standing Medical Board of IHBAS on 06.11.2013. Based on serial clinical assessment, patient is diagnosed as a case of Severe Mental Retardation with speech impairment with spastic paraparesis. He is currently unable to take care of self and property.” 7. Reference: Hon’ble Court order dated 05.09.2013 vide ref. No.03/13. The patient Mukesh was examined by the Standing Medical Board of IHBAS on 06.11.2013. Based on serial clinical assessment, patient is diagnosed as a case of Severe Mental Retardation with speech impairment with spastic paraparesis. He is currently unable to take care of self and property.” 7. On 10th January, 2014, the Trial Court fixed the case for recording of the petitioner’s evidence on 1st April, 2014. 8. On 1st April, 2014, the petitioner filed evidence by way of affidavit as well as no objection of respondents no.2 to 6 which were taken on record and the case was fixed for final hearing on 8th May, 2014. Order dated 1st April, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:- “01.04.14 Present: Sh. Tarun Shokeen, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Vibhash Mishra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 to 6 has filed fresh Vakalatnama. Respondents no.2 to 6 are present in person have filed affidavits/NOC and stated that they have no objection if petitioner is appointed as guardian of person & property of mentally ill Mukesh for taking care of him as he is presently residing and is in permanent case & custody of petitioner, being the brother and they are ready to give statements. Separate statements of R2 to 6 has been recorded in this regard. In the meantime, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed evidence by way of affidavit of plaintiff and he is examined as PW-1. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner does not want to lead further evidence and requested that PE may kindly be closed and matter may be fixed for final arguments. Heard. Considered. Now, to come up for appearance on behalf of parties and final arguments on 08.05.2014.” 9. On 8th May, 2014, the Trial Court heard the arguments but adjourned the matter for further arguments on 7th July, 2014. Order dated 8th May, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:- “08.05.2014. Present: Sh. Tarun Shokeen, counsel for petitioner. None for respondent. Heard. Considered. Now, to come up for appearance on behalf of parties and final arguments on 08.05.2014.” 9. On 8th May, 2014, the Trial Court heard the arguments but adjourned the matter for further arguments on 7th July, 2014. Order dated 8th May, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:- “08.05.2014. Present: Sh. Tarun Shokeen, counsel for petitioner. None for respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petition is filed under Mental Health Act for seeking permission to sell the share of mentally ill person by the elder brother as mentally ill person is having share in the joint property owned by family members and the disability certificate issued by Safdarjang Hospital and report in this regard filed by IHBAS is already on record and earlier respondents have given their no objection in this regard and the petitioner was appointed as a guardian of mentally ill person by Deputy Commissioner (NW), Kanjhawala, Delhi and copy of the same has been placed on record and present petition is only for seeking permission to sell the share of mentally ill person in the property jointly owned by the parties. Heard. Now to come up for appearance on behalf of the parties, further arguments and further proceedings on 07.07.2014.” 10. On 28th August, 2014, the Trial Court called upon the petitioner to satisfy the jurisdiction to grant permission to sell the property outside Delhi and adjourned the matter to 5th November, 2014. Order dated 28th August, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:- “28.08.2014 Present: Mr. Tarun, Counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petition is filed under Mental Health Act for seeking permission to sell the share of the mentally ill person in the property which was inherited by the petitioner as well as other LR of the deceased Narayan Singh and mentally ill person. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that mentally ill person is also having 1/7 share in the property which is situated at District Rohtak, Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that mentally ill person is also having 1/7 share in the property which is situated at District Rohtak, Haryana. In the meantime, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that other LRs who were having 1/7 shares each have already sold their share in the property and the sale deed has also been placed on record and the present petition is only for the permission to sell share of the mentally ill person in the property and will satisfy the court that this court has jurisdiction to grant permission to sell the property outside the jurisdiction of Delhi. Heard. At request, matter is adjourned for appearance on behalf of the parties and for further arguments/further proceedings on 05.11.2014. Date is given at the convenience of the counsel for the petitioner.” 11. On 5th November, 2014, the Court further heard the matter and adjourned it to 9th February, 2015. The order dated 5th November, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:- “05.11.2014 Present:- Sh. Tarun Shokeen, counsel for petitioner. Counsel for petitioner has stated that present petition has been filed for the grant of guardianship of mentally ill person Mukesh and seeking permission to sell the property of mentally ill person Mukesh as he is having 1/7 share in the property which is situated at Rohtak, Haryana. Counsel for petitioner has stated that petitioner is the brother of mentally ill person and Deputy Commissioner (N/W), District Kanjhawala, Delhi has already appointed him as guardian and order in this regard has already been placed on record. In the meantime, counsel for petitioner has stated that in inquisition proceedings done by the court U/s. 50 Mental Health Act and mentally ill person Mukesh was referred to IHBAS and report has already been filed and as per report, mentally ill person Mukesh is suffering from severe mental retardation and is currently unable to take care of self and property. Counsel for petitioner has stated that since the property for which permission has been sought is not within jurisdiction of this Court and as per Section 51(d) the court has power to issue notice to the concerned Collector, where the land is situated and satisfy the court in this regard and requested for adjournment. Now to come up for appearance on behalf of the parties and further proceedings on 10.12.2014.” 12. Now to come up for appearance on behalf of the parties and further proceedings on 10.12.2014.” 12. On 9th February, 2015, the matter was heard by the Trial Court and kept for order on 26th February, 2015 at 2.00 p.m. On 26th February, 2015 the case was adjourned to 20th March, 2015, 8th April, 2015 and 28th April, 2015. 13. On 28th April, 2015, the Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “3. I have heard arguments on this petition from the side of the petitioner. To my considered opinion, such arguments were almost repetitions of averments of the petition filed in this matter. I perused the judicial file minutely to decide this petition. 4. Sec-59 of MH Act, provides, inter-alia, that the District Court may, on an application made by the Manager, grant him permission to transfer by sale, gift etc, any immovable property of the mentally ill person, subject to such conditions or restrictions as that court may think fit to impose. It is further provided in this section that the District Court, after making such inquires, as it may deem necessary, grant or refuse permission, having regard to the interests of the mentally ill person. 5. In this regard, I also refer to provisions of Sec-34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short SR Act). It provides, inter-alia, that any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion, may make therein a declaration that he is so entitled. Sec-16(d) of CPC also found relevant in this regard. It provides to the effect that the suits for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the property is situated. 6. The concerned property, regarding which permission has been sought by the petitioner in this petition, is admittedly situated at Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. 7. 6. The concerned property, regarding which permission has been sought by the petitioner in this petition, is admittedly situated at Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. 7. In the considered opinion of this court, coupled with mandate of Sec. 34 of SR Act and further coupled with mandate of Sec-16 (d) of CPC, the petitioner herein, ought to have instituted a suit/other appropriate proceeding for declaration, if so advised, claiming therein his entitlement for selling share of respondent no.7 in the concerned property. To my further considered opinion, such suit/other appropriate proceeding to the above effect, ought to have been filed by the petitioner, if so advised, before a competent court/forum, within territorial jurisdiction of District Rohtak, Harayana, having competency to decide such matter as per law. In my further considered view, the petitioner can also generate income from share of respondent no.7 from concerned property, to meet out expenses of respondent no.7, even without completely disposing of share of respondent no.7 in such property. 8. For the above mentioned reasons, coupled with the entire facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition of the petitioner, as prayed for. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Judicial file consigned to record room, as per rules after necessary compliance.” Submissions 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 clearly provides that the District Court, within whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides, is competent to entertain and try this petition. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Government of NCT of Delhi also submits that the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition under Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is unemployed and is unable to take care of respondent no.7. Legal position – Mental Health Act, 1987 16. The Mental Health Act, 1987 has consolidated the law relating to treatment and care of mentally ill persons to make better provision with respect to their property and affairs. Chapter II of the Mental Health Act provides for the establishment of Mental Health Authorities at Central and State level. Chapter III deals with provisions for establishment and maintenance of psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes. Chapter II of the Mental Health Act provides for the establishment of Mental Health Authorities at Central and State level. Chapter III deals with provisions for establishment and maintenance of psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes. Chapter IV deals with the procedure of admission and detention of mentally ill persons in psychiatric hospitals. Chapter V deals with the inspection, discharge, leave of absence and removal of mentally ill persons. 17. Chapter VI deals with the judicial inquisition regarding alleged mentally ill persons possessing property and its management. Inquisition means “the act of inquiring deeply or searchingly; investigation”. Inquisition qua the Mental Health Act is a judicial proceeding under the Act in which District Court makes an inquiry into the mental condition of the person alleged to be mentally ill who possesses property and gives its finding on the mental condition on the factum that whether the alleged person is in fact mentally ill or not, and where such person is mentally ill, then, whether he is incapable of taking care of himself and managing his property or not. Jurisdiction 18. Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 confers the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an inquisition on the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides. Section 50(1) of the Mental Health Act is reproduced hereunder:- “Sec.50. Application for judicial inquisition – (1)Where an alleged mentally ill person is possessed of property, an application for holding an inquisition into the mental condition of such person may be made either:- (a) by any of his relatives, or (b) by a public curator appointed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or (c) by the Advocate-General of the State in which the alleged mentally ill person resides, or (d) where the property of the alleged mentally ill person comprises land or interest in land, or where the property or part thereof is of such a nature as can lawfully be entrusted for management to a Court of Wards established under any law for the time being in force in the State, by the Collector of the District in which such land is situate, to the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides.” (Emphasis Supplied) Procedure to be adopted in judicial inquisition proceedings 19. On receipt of an application under Section 50(1), the District Court is required to serve the notice on the alleged mentally ill person or on the person having custody of the alleged mentally ill person for appearance and examination. The Court is also empowered to issue notice to be served on any relative or other person of alleged mentally ill person who, in the opinion of Court should have notice of judicial inquisition [Section 50(3)]. The Court is also empowered to appoint two or more persons to act as assessors. The District Court, upon completion of inquisition, is required to record its finding regarding factum of the alleged person being mentally ill and whether such mentally ill person is incapable of taking care of himself and of managing his property [Section 51]. Sections 52 to 54 contain provisions for appointment of guardian of the mentally ill person and manager of his property. The duties of the guardian and the manager and the power of the Court to allow the manager to sell the property of the mentally ill person are given in various Sections of Chapter VI more particularly under Sections 59 and 61. Proceedings under Chapter VI of the Mental Health Act are in the nature of an inquiry 20. The proceedings under Chapter VI of the Mental Health Act are in the nature of an inquiry and Section 77 empowers the District Court to make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Chapter VI. Section 77 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 is reproduced hereunder: “Section 77. Power of District Court to make regulations.– The District Court may, from time to time, make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Chapter.” Effect of Mental Health Act on other laws 21. Chapter VI of the Mental Health Act is a self-contained code in view of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 96 of the Act which provides that the provisions of this Act shall have an overriding effect over all other laws to the extent of being inconsistent therewith. Section 96 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 96. Effect of Act on other laws. Section 96 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 96. Effect of Act on other laws. – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force and to the extent of such inconsistency that other law shall be deemed to have no effect. Findings 22. This Court is satisfied that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition under Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of jurisdiction. 23. Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 clearly empowers the District Court within whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides and the location of the property of the mentally ill person has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Court because the proceedings are directed primarily against the person and secondarily against the property. 24. The reference made by the learned Trial Court to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was totally unwarranted. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is subject to any other special law and therefore, not applicable to the present case. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be resorted to in view of the specific provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987. 25. This Court is also satisfied that it is in the interest of respondent No.7 that his undivided share in the subject property be sold to enable the appellant to look after respondent No.7 since the appellant is unemployed and unable to take care of respondent No.7. 26. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is permitted to sell the undivided share of respondent No.7 in agricultural land measuring 155 bigha and 15 biswa in village Aawal, Tehsil Kalanaur, Distirct Rohtak, Haryana. However, the appellant shall deposit the sale proceeds along with copy of the sale deed with the Registrar General of this Court whereupon this Court shall disburse the amount in a phased manner to the appellant to protect the interest of respondent No.7. 27. List for disbursement of the sale proceeds as a part-heard matter on 18th May, 2017 at 02:30 p.m. 28. Liberty is given to the appellant to approach this Court for early hearing after the deposit of the sale proceeds. 27. List for disbursement of the sale proceeds as a part-heard matter on 18th May, 2017 at 02:30 p.m. 28. Liberty is given to the appellant to approach this Court for early hearing after the deposit of the sale proceeds. Post Script 29. This petition warranted expeditious hearing considering that the appellant had no means for sustenance of respondent No.7. However, the record shows that the Trial Court proceeded with the matter as a regular trial and the proceedings remained pending from 11th January, 2013 to 28th April, 2015. 30. This Court is of the view that the proceedings under the Mental Health Act, 1987 are in the nature of an inquiry and expeditious hearing is warranted in the inquiry proceedings. The principles relating to the difference between an inquiry and trial are discussed in Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC 878. This Court is of the view that the inquiry under the Mental Health Act, 1987 should be completed ordinarily within 90 days and in the event of unavoidable circumstances, within 6 months. It would therefore be appropriate for the Principal District Judge to frame the regulations to prescribe the procedure for conducting the inquiry within a fixed time frame under Section 77 of Mental Health Act, 1987. 31. The Principal District Judge is directed to ascertain the number of cases pending under Mental Health Act, 1987 and place the data before this Court within 8 weeks from today. 32. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by learned counsel for Government of NCT of Delhi. 33. Copy of this Judgment be sent to Principal District Judge who shall circulate it to the District Judges and Courts dealing with the cases under Mental Health Act, 1987. 34. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.