' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 21-6-2006, respondent No.l filed an application under section 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001. According to application she was married 35 years ago to the appellant and had been living with him as his wife. The relationship had remained cordial. However, couple remained issueless. The appellant retired as an Honorary Captain. He was taken as a prisoner by the Indian Army during 1971, war from Dacca and remained as such for more than 2 years. After his release he was retired. According to respondent No.l due to the treatment meted out to him during the said period of imprisonment he developed a mental disorder. He acquired several properties mentioned in para. 3 of the application. The documents are in possession of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the said application (not impleaded in the present F.A.O.). In June, 2005, the appellant was afflicted by mental disease and he lost his senses as also memory. He was got treated by her in C.M.H., Jhelum but his condition deteriorated. The said respondents Nos.2 and 3 taking advantage of the said condition of the appellant took control and possession of the property mentioned in para.3 except property No.Iii, a residential house. They have now taken him to Jhelum from Dhoke Kariala on the pretext that he is to be checked up by a Psychiatrist and is being kept there. She has not been allowed to meet him for the last one year. They are trying to deprive him of his property. The Advocate General Punjab has permitted her to file the said application. With these averments she prayed for an inquiry into the mental disorder of the appellant, an order for admission in a mental health facility and for her appointment as Guardian also for appointment of a Manager of the property. A reply was filed by all the respondents in the said application. They took the plea that the entire property of the appellant stands sold. Regarding his disease it was stated that he was suffering from Hepatitis and was being treated at C.M.H., Jhelum. A learned A.D.J., Gujrat conducted the proceedings and framed issued. Evidence was recorded. Vide judgment dated 31-1-2007, both the respondents were appointed as guardian of the appellant and necessary instructions were issued regarding his treatment and management of the property.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment is silent as to the validity of the transfer of his property by the appellant. According to him on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be said that he is suffering from any mental disorder. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contends that- the mental disorder of the appellant has been proved on record and the matter of validity of the transfer will be determined by a court of general jurisdiction.
3. I have gone through the record of the learned A.D.J., Gujrat with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Before I proceed further I may note here that the appellant was examined by the learned A.D.J. On 6-11-2006, and he was also examined by me before issuing notice to the respondents. So far as his response to the questions put by the learned A.D.J., he had not answered most of the questions fully. It has been stated in the reply allegedly filed on his behalf that he has divorced his wife on 18-3-2006, whereas while appearing before me on 7-3-2007, he stated that Mst. Razia Sultana is living with him as his wife in his village DhokeKariala District Gujrat. He had 'been subjected to Medical Examination and according to the report of the Special Medical Board he was admitted in the Psychiatry Unit of Services Hospital for a period of two weeks and after examination it was opined that he is suffering from Organic Brain Syndrome (Alzheimer's Dementia). According to the Specialist it is mental disorder and the appellant is not fit to manage his property and his affairs. The report was not questioned by any of the parties to the said application. Having thus examined the record I do not find any ground being made out for interference , with the impugned judgment. So far as said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the .Decision regarding the validity of the sale is concerned, I am constrained to observe that the matter has been argued more for the benefit of the transferees than the appellant. Be that as it may the learned counsel for the respondents has very correctly pointed that the validity of the transfer will be adjudged by a civil court and for this purpose guardian/Manager will be taking appropriate proceedings. The F.A.O. Is accordingly dismissed but without any order as ta costs. The record of the learned A.D.J. Be remitted back immediately.