JUDGMENT : T. Vinod Kumar, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in I.A. No. 487 of 2020 in O.P. No. 21 of 2020 on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 of CPC. 2. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application and also in the O.P. 3. The O.P. is filed under section 14 of Mental Health care Act, 2017 r/w Section 14 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 r/w Rule - 4 of Telangana State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2018 to declare the appellant/petitioner as a legal guardian or nominated representative/best friend of Smt. Gowri Priya to deal and protect her entitled movable and immovable petition schedule A, B & C schedule properties falling to her share. 4. In the aforesaid O.P, the appellant has filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for granting ad-interim injunction order restraining the respondents from alienating or changing the nature of the petition schedule property or creating any third parties right or creating any charge or dealing with the petition schedule properties in any manner pending disposal of the main petition. 5. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that he is the elder brother of Late B. Rajagopal, who passed away on 26.09.2019 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Subhadra and only daughter Ms. Gowri Priya. Appellant contends that Gowri Priya is a differently abled person who received special education. In 2008, Gowri Priya is married to Mr. Sreesan A. Gopinath i.e. respondent herein and out of wed-lock they were blessed with a boy in 2009, named Master Yograj Sreesan. 6. The appellant further contends that in 2018, the Respondent took Ms. Gowri Priya and their child to his parental house in Cochin without informing his father-in-law i.e. brother of appellant. The respondent’s parental house was lacking in providing the required facilities to Mrs. Gowri Priya and did not meet the standard of education required by the child. It is further contended that in 2018, the applicant’s brother has submitted a petition to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission expressing his anguish, apprehensions and the psychological pressure on his daughter exerted by family members of respondent. 7. Gowri Priya and did not meet the standard of education required by the child. It is further contended that in 2018, the applicant’s brother has submitted a petition to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission expressing his anguish, apprehensions and the psychological pressure on his daughter exerted by family members of respondent. 7. The appellant contends that in July 2018, the appellant’s brother sought his assistance to create a "Private Family Trust" for Ms. Gowri Priya's properties and assets i.e. H. No, 1301, Road No. 66, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (in short for ‘Subject property A’) and her share of the ancestral property in H. No. 10- 2-276/3/1; Plot No.17, West Marredpally, Secunderabad (in short for ‘Subject property B’) and all other movable and immovable properties coming to her share (in short for ‘Subject property C’), the same was mentioned in the Mandate of Operation dt. 02.07.2018 executed by Late. Shri. B. Rajagopal. 8. The appellant further contends that after the death of appellant's brother on 26.09.2019, the respondent allegedly broke open Smt. Subhadra Kunduri's Almirah on 11.11.2019 and stole property documents. A complaint has been registered in the Jubilee hills police station for theft under Section 378 of IPC. 9. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that on 12.12.2019 he has sent a letter to the respondent to discuss about setting up a "Private Family Trust," for the properties coming to the benefit of Ms. Gowri Priya, but the Respondent failed to attend. On 25.01.2020 the appellant approached the Mental Health Review Board to appoint him as the Nominated Representative for Ms. Gowri Priya. However, as the board was not constituted, no steps were taken on the said application. 10. The appellant contends that on 22.10.2020, the Respondent, along with family members, allegedly intruded into the ‘subject property A’. To that effect Ms. Subhadra Kundri had raised a complaint through phone call and filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 2443 of 2020 seeking for perpetual injunction against the Respondent from interfering with the property. The appellant further contend that the Respondent is trying to take advantage of Ms. Gowri Priya's mental state to create third-party rights in the property and syphon off her assets, and it is for the said reason, he is seeking to be declared as the nominated representative of Ms. The appellant further contend that the Respondent is trying to take advantage of Ms. Gowri Priya's mental state to create third-party rights in the property and syphon off her assets, and it is for the said reason, he is seeking to be declared as the nominated representative of Ms. Gowri Priya to safeguard her property and fulfil the wishes of his late brother by creating a family trust. By contending as above, the Appellant sought for dismissal of the underlying Interlocutory Application. 11. Per contra the respondent contends that his wife i.e. Smt. Gowri Priya, is in sound physical and mental health and is not suffering from any disability as contemplated under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (in short ‘Act’) 12. The respondent contends that the applicant, has maliciously initiated the present proceedings with an intent to mislead the Court and unlawfully acquire the valuable properties of Smt. Gowri Priya, i.e. subject property A, B, and C. The appellant in collusion with Smt. Subhadra Kunduri, who is falsely claiming to be the second wife of Late B. Rajagopal are attempting to usurp the properties belonging to his wife i.e. Smt. Gowri Priya. 13. The respondent contended that Gowri Priya is having a natural brother by name, Mr. Ranjit Raj Gopal who has not been made a party in the alleged mandate of operation dated 02.07.2018 and therefore its execution appears to be suspicious and doubtful. 14. It is further contended that as per Rule 4 of Telangana State Rights of persons with Disabilities Rules 2018, limited guardianship shall be granted in the first instance to the parents, and thereafter to the siblings of the person with disability. The appellant, being merely a paternal uncle, does not fall within the categories prescribed under the said Rule. Further, there is no evidence to show that the parents and brother of Gowri priya are unavailable or unfit. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to seek appointment as a limited guardian, and thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 15. The respondent contends that no certificate from the competent authority under Sections 14 or 58 of the Act has been filed to establish any disability of Smt. Gowri Priya and on the other hand she herself having filed an application dated. 15. The respondent contends that no certificate from the competent authority under Sections 14 or 58 of the Act has been filed to establish any disability of Smt. Gowri Priya and on the other hand she herself having filed an application dated. 20.06.2006 for transfer of membership in the Jubilee Hills Co- operative Housing Society along with her father’s affidavit, would indicate that she does not have any mental health issues. 16. The trial Court, heard both the parties and upon perusal of the documents filed, dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application stating that the applicant has not made out any prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in his favour. The Court below observed that Smt. Gowri Priya has a natural brother, yet the appellant failed to mention his name in the affidavit. In the absence of any medical proof from a competent authority regarding Smt. Gowri Priya’s disability, it cannot be conclusively determined that she is a differently abled person. Furthermore, Gowri Priya has challenged the interim order passed on 24.11.2020 through her power of attorney and initiated legal proceedings in OS No. 265 of 2020 against the appellant. Therefore, it is prima facie evident that she is competent and capable of independently making decisions in relation to her properties. 17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the appellant had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 18. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent also perused the record. 19. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 101(1) and (2) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 empowers the state to frame rules for effective implementation of the Act. In furtherance of such power conferred, The Telangana State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 were framed. Sub rule (5) of Rule 4 is relevant to the issue under consideration and reads as under: “While granting the support of such limited guardianship 'the Court or the designated authority shall consider a suitable person to be appointed as a limited guardianship in the following preference of merit: - (a) The parents or adult children of the person with Disability; (b) Immediate brother or sister; (c) Other Blood relatives or care givers or prominent personality of the locality.” 20. From a reading of the above said rule, a person to be appointed as guardian, must fall within the above said three categories mentioned under the above said Rule 4(5). This provision outlines the order of preference for appointing a limited guardian. i.e. first preference is given to the parents or adult children of the person with disability. If the above not available or suitable, immediate brothers or sisters are considered. Next in line are other blood relatives, care givers, or prominent individuals from the locality. This order of preference shall be adhered to, unless circumstances exist that render such individuals unsuitable or unavailable, in which case the competent authority shall record reasons in writing for deviation therefrom. 21. In the present case, the appellant has failed to produce requisite documentary evidence to establish that Mrs. Gowri Priya is differently abled person lacking legal competence, thereby necessitating the appointment of a limited guardian. Even assuming that Smt. Gowri Priya is declared to be a person with disability under the applicable law, the appointment of a limited guardian must be made in accordance with Rule 4(5) of the Telangana State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018, wherein preference is accorded, firstly, to the mother (in light of the father's demise), and secondly, to the immediate sibling, namely her brother, in the event the mother is found to be unsuitable. In the present facts since both the mother and the immediate sibling are available, the appellant cannot, by any means, be declared or recognized as the guardian, nominated representative, or best friend of Smt. Gowri Priya for the purpose 10 of dealing with or safeguarding the subject properties A, B, and C. 22. Since, Rule 5(4) of the Telangana State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2018 categorically states the priority for appointing a limited guardian, the court cannot appoint any person as limited guardian in deviation of the priority prescribed. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of trial Court does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court. 24. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed. 25. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.