The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of the Court to inquire into the mental capacity of a party alleged to be of unsound mind before admitting the plaint and issuing summons, as per Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC.

CS (OS) No. 950 of 2013 with IA No. 8335 of 2013 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC), IA No. 8337 of 2013 (under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC), IA 8338 of 2013 (under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC) and IA No. 10257 of 2013 (by the Defendant for recall of order dated 20th May 2013)

1. The present suit has been filed for a declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendant, Mrs. Uma Bahadur. The prayer in the suit is that a Release Deed dated 24th May 1999 and a Rectification Deed dated 17th November 1999 stated to have been executed by Mrs. Shanta Chopra, in whose name the present suit has been filed, in favour of the Defendant, in relation to the property at 24, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi (property in question) should be declared null and void. The further prayer in the suit is for a permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant from holding out as the owner of the entire property in question and to restrain her from selling, mortgaging, transferring or creating any charge or parting with possession thereof to any third person without the consent of the Plaintiff.

The averments in the plaint

2. The cause title of the plaint reflects that the Plaintiff is Mrs. Shanta Chopra presently residing at the property in question. She is described as “a person of unsound mind” and being represented through her son and next friend, Mr. Ravi Chopra, presently residing at 54, Ground Floor, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi”. It is not disputed that the Defendant is the real sister of the Plaintiff. In para 1 of the plaint, it is stated that the Plaintiff “who is advanced in age and suffering from various ailments” is also presently residing in the property in question. In para 2, it is stated that the Plaintiff is 87 years old; that since 1995-96, she has been suffering from “severe ailments such as advanced Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis in left knee, Rhinitis and hypertension, which have deteriorated her physical and mental condition and due to which, she is unable to grasp, analyze or understand the implications of her actions spoken or written.” It is stated that “the Plaintiff, thus being of unsound mind, is unable to make informed and appropriate decisions and protect her interests.”

3. The plaint has been signed by Mr. Ravi Chopra and the affidavit in support of the plaint is also signed by Mr. Ravi Chopra. In para 1 of the affidavit dated 16th May 2013 in support of the plaint, apart from stating that he is the son and legal heir of the Plaintiff, Mr. Ravi Chopra states that he is “the proposed next friend/guardian ad litem of the Plaintiff and as such is well conversant with facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. The plaint narrates that Mr. Ravi Chopra was born to the Plaintiff and late Dr. (Brigadier) Sri Krishan Chopra (Retd.) in 1949 and his sister Mrs. Anuradha Chopra was born in 1958. It is stated that Mrs. Anuradha Chopra passed away in 1994. Para 5 of the plaint states that Mr. Ravi Chopra lived overseas for many years and continued to send money back home to his parents. He used to visit and live with his parents whenever he returned to India and even the parents visited and stayed with him till the year 1995 upon their visit to Dubai. In 1998, he decided to shift back to India permanently with his family to live with his parents at the Sunder Nagar Property belonging to and owned by his father. From 1998 till 1999, Mr. Ravi Chopra and his family lived with his parents at the Sunder Nagar property. It is stated that Mr. Ravi Chopra continued to look after his father till his demise on 8th September 2002.

5. In Para 8 of the plaint, it is stated the Mrs. Shanta Chopra was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis etc. and was diagnosed and regularly treated for the same. It is stated that “The mental and physical health of the Plaintiff was deteriorating with passage of time and post 2002 (i.e. after the demise of her husband), the Plaintiff’s health worsened at a much rapi