The court established that under the Mental Health Act, 1987, a judicial inquiry into the mental capacity of an individual is essential when there are allegations of mental incapacity affecting legal rights, and that procedural safeguards must be followed to protect the interests of the mentally ill.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 15/9/2021, passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.202/2017, on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), allowing I.A.No.10 filed under Sec. 50(1), (4) of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ('the Act for short) read with Sec. 151 of CPC for appointment of psychiatrist who is expert in the field to ascertain the mental capacity of the plaintiff and to submit the report.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration to declare that all the acts done by defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., selling of the property of unsound mind plaintiff without seeking any permission from the Court or appointment of guardian as null and void. The plaintiff also interalia filed I.A.No.10 under Sec. 50(1) and (4) of Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying the Court to appoint a Senior Psychiatrist or a Psychologist an expert in the field to assess the mental condition of the plaintiff and call for report. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by the next friend that the plaintiff is the son of M.R. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Jaya Krishnaswamy and suit schedule A, B and C properties are the properties of M.R. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Jaya Krishnaswmay and both of them are no more. The plaintiff succeeded to the estate of them and he is of unsound mind and he is incapable of understanding things and he is suffering from mental disorder. The alienation made by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2, cannot be considered as a valid alienation and reiterated that without the appointment of guardian to protect the interest of the plaintiff, any alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be considered as valid alienation.

3. The said application was resisted by the defendants contending that the very suit itself is not maintainable and the plaintiff has filed an application only with an intention to protract the proceedings. In order to prove the fact that he is of unsound mind, no material is placed before the Court. The defendants filed the written statement contending the very status of the next friend who has filed the suit and question of cheating the plaintiff does not arise and there are no bonafide in the application.

4. The Trial Court having considered the application and the grounds urged in the application, affidavit and also taking note of the objections, comes to the conclusion that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have contended that question of appointing Psychiatrist does not arise at all because under the provisions, the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and he is not suffering from any mental disorder. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit, but filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC to hold a preliminary enquiry on the mental capacity of the plaintiff. Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC clearly establishes that at the time of institution of the suit, an enquiry has to be held by the Court regarding mental status of the person and after coming to the conclusion that he is of unsound mind, then it has to proceed with the suit authorizing the guardian to proceed with the case. Hence, he cannot invoke Sec. 50 of the Act. But the Trial Court having considered the material on record and also considering the report of NIMHANS, taken note of the fact that the average intelligence on the test and IQ, his mental age is of 6 years and 6 months and IQ is 41 and shows his below average in immediate memory test. He is having functioning inappropriate or moderately or below average intelligence on the test given. The Trial Court considered the same and held that the report is necessary in order to take a decision with regard to the mental capacity of the plaintiff since he has been represented through next friend. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion having taken n