( 1 ) THIS second appeal is before us on a reference made by our learned brother Muktadar, J.

( 2 ) THE defendant is the appellant. The suit is filed by the next friend and guardian of the 1st plaintiff for a declaration that the sale deed Dt. 25-5-1973 is null and void on the ground that it was executed by the 1st plaintiff who is person of unsound mind. Along with the plaint, I. A. No. 181/74 was filed by the wife under O. XXXII. R. 15 C. P. C. to appoint her as the next friend and guardian. This petition is supported by the affidavit of the wife stating that her husband was of unsound mind and was incapable of protecting his interests. Three affidavits of the persons belonging to the same village were also filed. On this material, the learned District Munsif before whom the suit was filed passed an order on 6-7-1974 directing the suit to be registered and also observed that the petition is allowed. Having passed this order, the district Munsif ordered notice to the respondents. The 1st Plaintiff died on 18-11-1974 When I. A. No. 181/74 came up for orders, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application as having become infructuous as by then his wife and minor son were brought on record as his legal representatives. Subsequently the suit was posted for trial.

( 3 ) THE main issue in the suit was whether the sale deed Dt. 25-5-1973 was executed by the 1st plaintiff in an unsound state of mind. Several witnesses were examined on either side. On a consideration of the evidence the trial Court found that plaintiffs 2 and 3 have failed to establish that the sale deed was executed by the 1st plaintiff in an unsound state of mind. On this finding, the suit was dismissed.

( 4 ) THE 2nd plaintiff carried the mater in appeal in A. S. No. 170 of 1977. By its judgment Dt. 17/10/1978 the appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit holding that the 1st plaintiff was a person of unsound mind and the sale deed executed by him on 25-5-1973 is null and void.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment the defendant preferred this appeal.

( 6 ) MR. N. V. Ranganadhan, learned counsel for the appellant, raised two contentions: (1) the suit itself is incompetent and not maintainable inasmuch as no enquiry was conducted as required by the mandatory provisions of order XXXII, R. 5 C. P. C. he submits that an elaborate enquiry should have been conducted before allowing the suit to be instituted by the next friend with regard to the fact that the 1st plaintiff was of unsound mind. Since no enquiry was conducted, the suit must be held to be not maintainable. (2) the second submission of Mr. Ranganadhan is that the finding of the appellate by the 1st plaintiff in an unsound state of mind in not sustainable as there is no sufficient evidence on record and the 1st plaintiff was not subjected to any medical examination.

( 7 ) WE will first take up the second submission. Suffice it to say that this has to be rejected in limine as we are sitting in second appeal and the correctness of findings of fact cannot be canvassed in a second appeal. The appellate Court has given reasons in support of its order and the finding is supported by evidence. Insufficiency of evidence is not a matter which can be canvassed in a second appeal and the findings of fact are binding on us. We, Therefore, reject the second contention.

( 8 ) WE now take up the first contention based on the provisions of O. XXXII, R. 15 C. P. C. to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to extract that provision which reads as follows: 15. "rules 1 to 14 (except R. 2-A shall), so far as may be apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable by reason of any mental infirmity, or protecting their interest when suing or being sued".

( 9 ) A plain reading of this Rule leaves no doubt that the Court