K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The questions of law involved in this Civil Revision Petition are the following:

1. What is the procedure to be followed when the plaintiff on whose behalf her next friend instituted the suit, comes forward and says that she is not of unsound mind or a person of feeble mind and that she does not want to continue to prosecute the suit?

2. Whether it is mandatory to remove the next friend before disposing of the suit on the application of the plaintiff on whose behalf the next friend instituted the suit?

3. Whether it is mandatory that after removal of the next friend the suit should be continued by the plaintiff?

4. Whether the next friend has any right to cross examine the plaintiff who gives sworn statement before Court in an enquiry under Rule 15 of Order XXXII that she is not mentally infirm or a person of unsound mind?

5. Whether the plaintiff in such a suit can approach the Court on her own and contend that she is not a person of unsound mind or a person of feeble mind and that she does not want to continue the suit, or is it necessary that an application should be filed on her behalf by some other person or the defendant?

The plaintiff in the suit (O.S. No. 167 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvalla) is D. Bharathiyamma represented by her next friend A. Ramachandran Pillai. The defendants in the suit are the daughter of Bharathiyamma, the son of first defendant and the assignee of the property from Bharathiyamma.

2. The relief prayed for in the suit is for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Bharathiyamma in favour of the third defendant in the year 2008 in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 28 Ares.

3. In the plaint, the next friend of the plaintiff stated thus:

2. The plaintiff is enfeebled by old age and mentally infirm. On account of her mental infirmity she is incapable of understanding business and forming a rational judgement as to its effect on her. She does not have even the capacity to arrive at reasonable judgement as to the consequences of a contract and its effect on her interest and hence she is represented in this suit by her son as the next friend.

...

12. Thereafter he contacted the plaintiff and enquired how and why she executed the sale deed and she told her son that she was unduly influenced by the defendants 1 and 2 and that the sale deed happened to be executed virtually at their end. Since the sale deed has been apparently executed by the feeble minded plaintiff and under the undue influence of the defendants 1 and 2 the same is to be adjudged voidable and ordered it to be delivered up and cancelled on the following reasons:-

...

4. Bharathiyamma (the plaintiff) filed I.A. No. 1175 of 2008 praying to conduct an enquiry under Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, to take her evidence and any other evidence and to take the suit 'off the file'. In the affidavit accompanying the application, Bharathiyamma stated that she is not a person of unsound mind or a person of feeble mind. The suit was instituted by her son as next friend only to wreck vengeance against her. She was having disputes with her son for the last several years. The next friend has no right to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also stated that O.S. No. 282 of 2003 filed by her before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla against the next friend Ramachandran Pillai is pending in the transferee court. Ramachandran Pillai had instituted O.S. No. 554 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla against Bharathiyamma and also defendants 1 and 2 in the present suit. That suit is also pending. The plaintiff also stated that Ramachandran Pillai had instituted O.S. No. 77 of 1998 against her before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. That suit was dismissed. The Appeal and Second Appeal therefrom were also dismissed. O.S. No. 77 of 1998 was a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for sale in respect of