The procedure for appointing a next friend for a person of unsound mind under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the effect of such an order.

( 1 ) THIS question petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, given on 30/08/1966. It arises in the following circumstances: -

( 2 ) THE respondent plaintiff Duvvuru Rami Reddi filed O. S. No. 73 of 1959 through has next friend, his daughter P. Rangamma. The next friend described the plaintiff as a person of unsound mind. The suit was for partition of the properties set out in the plaint schedules. The suit was instituted against his brother, the first defendant and others. It was inter alia alleged that the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers and are sons of one Ranga Reddy. The plaintiff has no sons, but has five daughters. One of the five daughters is now the next friend of the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 being the other daughters. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was from the beginning a man of weak intellect and was not capable of managing the properties. The first defendant was looking after the same. The plaintiffs mental condition deteriorated further since 1948 and he became frequently insane. The first defendant wanted to partition the property between the plaintiff and himself but it was not accepted by the plaintiffs wife. The first defendant removed the plaintiff got a partition deed dated 26-10-1952 executed from the plaintiff and go it registered. Likewise he got another document executed on 31-12-1952 which was a settlement deed and got it registered on 2/01/1953. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was from the beginning a man of weak intellect and was constantly mentally deranged on the dates when these documents were executed and got registered. These documents, therefore, are void transactions.

( 3 ) THE next friend while instituting the abovesaid suit filed I. A. No. 449 of 1959 on the same day when the suit was instituted under O. XXXII, R. 15, Civil P. C. for appointing her as the next friend alleging that the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind and as such incapable of protecting his interests. In support of this petition, the next friend her own affidavit and the affidavit of two other persons.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 5 remained ex parte, Respondents 6 to 9 filed their counter. In their counter they denied the allegation that the plaintiff was of unsound mind both at the time of the execution and registration of the abovesaid documents and at the time when the suit was instituted. They therefore disputed the correctness of his daughter representing him as the next friend.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to be personally present in the Court. On 20-7-1960, the Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties directed that a full-fledged inquiry should be made into the allegation and counter-allegation in regard to the unsoundness of mind of plaintiff. He, therefore, directed the reopening of the matter and posted the case for inquiry on 10-8-1960. It would be seen from his order that earlier an ex parte order was passed allowing the next friend to represent plaintiff which was reopened in view of the contentions raised by the defendants.

( 6 ) ON 10-12-1960, however, the learned Subordinate Judge after seeing the plaintiff and questioning him on several matters reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was hale and hearty and was answering questions put to him cogently. He, therefore, thought that there was no need to further inquire into the matter or call the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital who gave the certificate to him. He dismissed the petition.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff carried the matter in revision to this Court. My learned brother, Venkatesam, J. , allowed the revision petition and directed an inquiry into the question whether the plaintiff was of unsound mind at the time of the institution of the suit under O. XXXII, R. 15, Civil P. C. , vide Rami Reddy v. Papi Reddy, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 160.

( 8 ) AFTER the matter was thus remanded, the Subordinate Judges Court recorded the evidence adduced by the p