The main legal point established is the court's reliance on legal provisions to determine mental infirmity, representation of incapable persons, and the validity of the settlement deed based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, and proper attestation.

D. Sreedevi, J.

This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 133 of 1985 of the Sub Court, Kollam. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants and the second plaintiff and defendants 3, 4 and 6 are the respondents.

2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for setting aside Ext. Al settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed by the second plaintiff for and on behalf of the first plaintiff, on the allegation that the first plaintiff is mentally infirm and incapable of protecting his interests. According to the plaintiffs, Ext. Al is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and hence it is liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing documents in respect of the plaint property.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. The second defendant filed written statement through his power of attorney, They contended that the first plaintiff is not mentally deranged, that he is capable of protecting his interests, that the suit has been laid without the consent of the first plaintiff, that no permission has been obtained from the court to institute the suit, that the second plaintiff is not the legal guardian of the first plaintiff, that Ext. Al is valid and that the suit is not maintainable,

4. The fifth defendant, who was an attester to Ext. Al, supports the other defendants. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The second plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are recorded as his legal representatives.

5. The trial court after taking evidence held that the first plaintiff was mentally infirm and that he was incapable of protecting his interests. The court below granted a decree in favour of the second plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit is not maintainable as it is hit by O. XXXIIR.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit has been filed by the second plaintiff for and on behalf of the first plaintiff on the allegation that the first plaintiff is old and mentally infirm and is incapable of protecting his interests in his properties. The defendants deny those allegations. According to them, the first plaintiff is a man of robust health and that he is capable of protecting his interests and as such the second plaintiff has no right to represent the first plaintiff and to file a suit for and on behalf of the first plaintiff. O. XXXII R.15 provides that the court must hold an enquiry and come to a conclusion as to whether the first plaintiff is capable of protecting his interests. According to the defendants, no such enquiry has been conducted by the court before entering a finding that the first plaintiff is not capable of protecting his interests. The court has appointed the second plaintiff as the guardian of the first plaintiff to prosecute the suit.

7. Admittedly, the first plaintiff was 73 years of age on the date of filing of the suit viz., 14.10.1985. The learned trial judge directed the second plaintiff to produce the first plaintiff in court. The court recorded the following:

"1st plaintiff is produced by the 2nd p lain tiff. It appears that he is weak. Court put questions to the 1st plaintiff, but he did not reply to the questions"

On the above, the court found that the second plaintiff is entitled to prosecute the suit for and on behalf of the first plaintiff. It is true that the court has not made an elaborate enquiry as to whether the first plaintiff is competent to file the suit. The defendants have no case that the second plaintiff has any adverse interest against the first plaintiff. She has filed an affidavit as contemplated under S.212 of the Civil Rules of

Practice. Therefore, the court found that the second plaintiff was competent to represent the first plaintiff. The court is not expected to conduct an elaborate enquiry under O. XXXII R.15 of the Code of Civi