ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.207 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Dharapuram.

2. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent filed the suit for declaration declaring that the Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2016 was registered vide document 1128 of 2016 is fraudulent and invalid with reference to the 1st item of the suit schedule property. Further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 6 from executing and registering any conveyance or documents in respect of the 1st item of the suit schedule property on the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2016.

3. Mr.T.Muthugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners 1 and 2 are maternal aunts of the 1st respondent herein, i.e., the 1st respondent's father's own sisters. The 1st respondent already filed a suit for partition in which the petitioners 1 and 2 are the defendants 24 and 25 respectively. The preliminary decree was passed and allotted 5/16th share to the 2nd petitioner herein, in respect of the A and B schedule property and remaining property equally shared by other defendants. Even till today, no final decree application was filed by any of the parties.

4. After the preliminary decree, the 1st respondent herein executed two settlement deeds in respect of his undivided shares in favour of his wife. In so far as the undivided share of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein they executed Power of Attorney in favour of the 3rd petitioner herein. Now, the 1st respondent filed a suit for declaration declaring that the Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2016 is null and void and restraining the other defendants from alienating the suit property on the strength of the Power of Attorney to the third parties. The 1st respondent is no way connected with the undivided share of the suit property belong to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The 1st respondent has no locus to file a suit questioning the Power of attorney executed by the petitioners 1 and 2, since he is not the party to the document and also admittedly the undivided share is belong to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the suit itself is sheer abuse of process of law and it is liable to be strike off in lemine.

5. He further submitted that the suit property subjected to the partition suit filed in O.S.No.92 of 1987, in which the suit properties the undivided 5/16th share was already allotted to the petitioners 1 and 2 as well as the 1st respondent herein. In pursuant to the preliminary decree, the 1st respondent already executed Power of Attorney in favour of his wife. Therefore, he cannot question the share allotted to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Though there is alternative remedy to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the 1st respondent has no locus to file the present suit as well as no cause of action arose to file the suit and the suit is clear abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following Judgments,

(i) in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs. Suresh Productions and others [2020 4 CTC 898],

(ii) in the case of P.Baskar and other Vs. P.Annadurai [2020 SCC Online Madras 6229].

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 2nd petitioner herein is mentally ill person under the Mental Health Act 1997, represented by his father Natraya Asari. In fact the said Natraya Asari was appointed as guardian by the Court in the earlier suit itself filed for partition in O.S.No.92 of 1987. Therefore, the power of attorney executed by her is not valid one, since she is a mentally unsound person. He further submitted that the property of the mentally unsound person has to be dealt with only with the permission of the District Court and duly appointed by the Manager and guardian. The petitioner herein did not obtain any order to maintain the property belong to the 2nd petitioner herein. He fur