Madras High Court directs appointment of wife as guardian to manage comatose husband’s estate

The first petitioner sought permission to act for her husband, Bovas, who was unconscious and non-responsive following a hemorrhagic stroke and was undergoing continuous treatment for quadriparesis.

She wished to deal with a 4.600-cent property standing in his name, reportedly for medical and family needs. The Sub-Registrar rejected her request, reasoning that Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 required the executant to appear and acknowledge the document.

The petitioners challenged that communication and sought appointment of the first petitioner as guardian of her husband and authority to deal with the property.

Whether the Sub-Registrar could decline the request on the ground that the husband could not personally appear and acknowledge the document under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether the first petitioner could be appointed guardian to manage her husband’s estate, including for the proposed alienation of the property, under the National Trust Act, 1999.

Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 was cited by the Sub-Registrar as requiring the executant’s appearance and acknowledgment for registration.

The Court relied on the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, including the Local Authority’s role in guardianship matters under Section 13.

It also relied on G. Babu v. District Collector, Madurai (as quoted in M. Venkatraman v. State of Tamil Nadu), which adopted a purposive approach to the 1999 Act and recognised the Local Level Committee’s role in considering guardianship for persons with disabilities.

The Court noted Shoba Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, concerning the limits of guardianship under the 1999 Act for a person in a comatose state.

The Court found that Bovas was unconscious, non-responsive and under continuous treatment for quadriparesis, as recorded in the medical certificate dated 20 May 2026.

It treated his condition as falling within the cerebral-palsy limb of the 1999 Act and concluded that the petitioners should pursue guardianship through the statutory Local Authority rather than have the Sub-Registrar’s registration objection determine the matter.

Accordingly, it directed the Local Authority to consider the documents and act on the guardianship request, with the Revenue Authorities facilitating the proposed alienation.

The District Collector, Sub-Registrar and Revenue Authorities were directed to facilitate alienation of assets standing in Bovas’s name. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed; no costs were ordered.