Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
Mahanthi Bhavani Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Karubothu Muthyalamma – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2034 and 2036 of 2019
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 and Rule 1 R/w Rule 15 - Civil Rules of Practice - Section 212 - Possession and enjoyment of the property with her own right - Suffering from unsoundness of mind - Respondent filed Additional Senior Civil Judge seeking to appoint the respondent as a guardian, next friend of the plaintiff of and defendant in O.S. No. and to prosecute suit on her behalf, as she is suffering from unsoundness of mind - Petitioner is that plaintiff/defendant by name is the mother of petitioner - Muthyalamma got plaint schedule property under a gift deed - She is in possession and enjoyment of property with her own right, title and interest and paying taxes to the Municipality - Prior she has been suffering from mental derailment and she was referred Hospitals, T. Nagar - Doctor diagnosed that she is a patient of psychic disorder and advised to take her to the Psychiatric expert - She lost the power of discretion, incapable of knowing nature of act, she doing on account of her unsoundness of mind. Consequently, on death of the husband obtained the sale deed from in respect of plaint schedule property without paying any consideration by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence - Transaction is not real and same is brought into existence - She has been paying taxes to the entire property including plaint schedule property and petitioner intends to meet the same by construction of a house in it - As the existence of document in public records is a clog over title of plaintiff –
Finding of the court : enquiry should consist not only of the examination of the witnesses produced by either party, but also of examination of the alleged lunatic by the judge, either in open court or chambers as held procedure was not followed and Court below failed to atleast see mother of petitioner - Court is of the opinion that Court below committed mistake in not examining the mother of the petitioner personally before appointing petitioner as guardian, next friend - Categorically established that mother of petitioner was residing at Rajamahendravaram independently and petitioner is residing with her husband and the mother of petitioner was leading her life alone without the assistance of petitioner, who is only daughter to her. It proves that the mother of petitioner is not suffering with such serious health condition, as it is considered by Court - petitioner was in normal health condition and the Doctor who treated Muthyalamma, did not find any abnormalities in her mental status - Doctor also opined that when condition is normal, she is capable of entering into the contracts like sale etc. In view of the same, it can be concluded that at the time of execution of document mother of petitioner is in sound mind though she is taking some treatment from PW. 1. As and when, she was sound mind and she is normal and is capable of entering into contracts like sale etc., the execution of document be said that it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence - Court below noticed that there is no record to show that mental health condition - Court below ought not to have concluded that Muthyalamma is suffering from unsoundness of mind and ought not to have appointed the petitioner as guardian, next friend –
Result : Petitions are allowed
ORDER :
Battu Devanand, J.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the common order, dated 06.06.2019 in I.A. No. 736 of 2012 in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and I.A. No. 772 of 2013 in O.S. No. 298 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
2. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and defendant in O.S. No. 298 of 2013 and the respondent is the defendant in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 298 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
3. The respondent herein filed I.A. No. 736 of 2012 in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and I.A. No. 772 of 2013 in O.S. No. 298 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, seeking to appoint the respondent as a guardian, next friend of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and defendant in O.S. No. 298 of 2013 and to prosecute the suit on her behalf, as she is suffering from unsoundness of mind.
4. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in I.A. No. 736 of 2012 in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and I.A. No. 772 of 2013 in O.S. No. 298 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
5. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 736 of 2012 in O.S. No. 364 of 2012 and I.A. No. 772 of 2013 in O.S. No. 298 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, the case of the respondent herein as thus:
6. The case of the petitioner is that the plaintiff/defendant by name Karubothu Muthyalamma is the mother of the petitioner. The said Muthyalamma got plaint schedule property under a gift deed, dated 30.09.1999 from one Anapu Lakshmi and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the property with her own right, title and interest and paying taxes to the Municipality. Prior to 2004, she has been suffering from mental derailment and she was referred to Dr. Kasturi Subrahmanyam, Sanjivi Hospitals, T. Nagar, Rajahmundry. The Doctor diagnosed that she is a patient of psychic disorder and advised to take her to the Psychiatric expert. Right from the year, 2004 onwards, Muthyalamma has been taking treatment under Dr. Karri Rama Reddy in his hospital. She lost the power of discretion, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, she doing on account of her unsoundness of mind. Consequently, on the death of the husband of Muthyalamma, one Mahanthi Durga Raju, father of Mahanthi Bhavani Sankar obtained the sale deed from Muthyalamma in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of Mahanthi Bhavani Sankar without paying any consideration by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The transaction is not real and the same is brought into existence. She has been paying the taxes to the entire property including plaint schedule property and the petitioner intends to meet the same by construction of a house in it. As the existence of the document in the public records is a clog over the title of the plaintiff. She requested Mahanthi Bhavani Sankar to cooperate for the cancellation of the document, but he did not respondent. The petitioner is the best person to safeguard the interest of Muthyalamma. Under those circumstances, Muthyalamma filed a suit in O.S. No. 364 of 2012, being a mentally retarded woman, represented by her daughter, next friend and guardian. In the said suit, I.A. No. 736 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner herein under Order 32, Rule 1 R/w Rule 15 and Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to appoint her as guardian and next friend of the plaintiff and to prosecute the suit on her behalf as she is suffering from unsoundness of mind.
7. The suit in O.S. No. 298 of 2013 was filed by the respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and agents from every interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in an extent of 97 ½ sq. Yards purchased by way of a registere
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
