D. Murugesan, J.

The plaintiff in C.S.No.121 of 2006 is the appellant in O.S.A.No.5 of 2007. The suit has been laid for a declaration to declare that the first defendant, who is the first respondent in the appeal, is mentally retarded and incapable of taking care of her personal and proprietary interest and consequently to appoint the plaintiff as the lawful and legal guardian of the person and properties of the first defendant and also for other reliefs. Pending suit, O.A.No.147 of 2006 was filed by the appellant to grant an order of interim direction directing a panel of doctors from the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk or any other panel of doctors as deemed fit by this Court to examine the first defendant/first respondent and submit a report before this Court about the state of her mental health. The learned single Judge dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the appellant has to prove the case on his own on the basis of documents and materials in the trial and, considering the age of the first respondent, it is not proper and appropriate to subject her for medical examination to find out whether she is mentally retarded person or not. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

.2. The further few facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-

.The appellant is the son of the first respondent. The third respondent is his sister and the second respondent is the brother of the first respondent. The third respondent is also the wife of the second espondent and the fourth and fifth respondents are their sons. The sixth respondent is the daughter of the second and third respondents, who was given in marriage to the seventh respondent, the brother of the appellant. Thus all the parties are very closely related to each other.

3. According to the appellant, his father and the father of the second respondent constituted a joint Hindu Family and all the parties along with their close relatives lived in a common family house and the arrangement continued even after the death of the appellants father and also the death of the second respondents father. The business was also jointly managed as a family business.

4. It is the case of the appellant that his mother, the first respondent, has been suffering from mental retardation ever since the time of her birth and she is incapable of taking care of her personal or proprietary interest. In Feb2003, the appellant went to USA for taking treatment for his slip disc and returned to India in May2004. Taking advantage of his absence and his poor health, the respondents 2, 4, 5 and 7 colluded themselves in a manner prejudicial to the appellants interest and hatched a conspiracy to exclude the appellant from the joint family business as well as the joint family house. This led to lodging of police complaints by the parties against each other.

5. The appellant filed O.S.No.6703 of 2004 before the XIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house property. The second respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.988 of 2005 before the same Court praying for ejectment of the appellant from the house property.

6. In countering the interlocutory application filed by the appellant in O.S.No.6703 of 2004, an affidavit allegedly signed by the first respondent was filed by the respondents 2 to 7 and the appellant strongly objected to the same, as the first respondent is incapable of understanding English and incapable of signing such an affidavit. As the defendants 2 to 7 totally prevented the entry of the appellant and his family members into the ground floor of the property where his mother is residing, he preferred a complaint before the Kilpauk Police Station on 22. 2005 against the respondents 2 to 7 for taking action. As no action was taken, the appellant filed H.C.P.No.259 of 2005 on the file of this