Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, J.
Dashrath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gaya Din and Another – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1722 of 1999
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Order 32, Rule 15 CPC provides for an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of a party to a suit. The court can conduct this inquiry before or during the pendency of the suit. In this case, the lower courts followed the mandatory provision and conducted the inquiry during the trial. The defendants' application for a medical examination of the plaintiff was rejected, as they had failed to make the request earlier and the plaintiff had passed away.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, who was suffering from unsoundness of mind, appointed his brother as his General Power of Attorney. The defendants fraudulently executed sale deeds in their favor regarding the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. The trial court found that the plaintiff was of unsound mind at the time of execution of the sale deeds and ordered their cancellation. The defendants appealed, arguing that the court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order 32, Rule 15 CPC. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The defendants then filed a second appeal, raising substantial questions of law regarding the legality of the decrees passed by the lower courts and the rejection of their application for a medical examination of the plaintiff. The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments and decree of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court conducted an inquiry into the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind and found that he was not in a fit mental condition to execute the sale deeds. The court considered medical certificates and testimonies of doctors to support its finding. The appellate court re-evaluated the evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. The court held that the inquiry into the plaintiff's mental condition could be conducted during the trial, as per the amended provision of Order 32, Rule 15 CPC. The court also rejected the defendants' application for a medical examination of the plaintiff, as they had failed to make the request earlier and the plaintiff had since passed away.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can conduct an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of a party to a suit before or during the pendency of the suit. The mandatory provision of Order 32, Rule 15 CPC was followed by the lower courts in this case, and the inquiry into the plaintiff's mental condition was conducted during the trial. The rejection of the defendants' application for a medical examination of the plaintiff was justified, as they had failed to make the request earlier and the plaintiff had passed away.
Result: The second appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsels for the defendant/appellant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava and Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsels for the plaintiffs/respondents and also perused the lower court record.
2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Banda in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1998, Dashrath Singh and Another vs. Gayadin and Another, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.03.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Banda, in Original Suit No. 34 of 1992.
3. The plaintiffs’ case is that he is suffering from unsoundness of mind and not in a position to decide about protection of his rights nor has capacity for the same. Plaintiff has got addicted to liquor and opium for last six months. He has become mentally disturbed. Surajdin is the elder brother of plaintiff, Gayadin and he looks after him and also protects his interest. Therefore, plaintiff has appointed him as his General Power of Attorney, holder. The interest of Gayadin and Surajdin are different. Gayadin was schizophrenic from childhood and its symptoms increased with age. Therefore, he could not be married to any girl. Gayadin is not able to read, write or understand anything. The defendant no. 1, Dashrath Singh, is providing means of addiction for last 4-5 years to the plaintiff. The defendants have got all the sale deeds dated 04.07.1992 fraudulently executed from the plaintiff regarding his land in their favour which is mentioned in schedule-A, schedule-B and schedule-C of the plaint. The above sale deeds are without payment of any sale consideration. The market value of the property in dispute is not less than Rs.10 lakhs when it has been sold for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs hence sale deeds deserve to be cancelled. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have got the sale deeds executed fraudulently in favour of defendant no. 3, when they have no possession over the property. The construction over the land in dispute belongs to the plaintiff and his brother, Surajdin. Over the disputed land shops have been constructed by Surajdin and he has let them out on rent. Surajdin realized the rent of the aforesaid shops which are part of joint Hindu family hence the suit was instituted praying for cancellation of two sale deeds dated 04.07.1992, in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2.
4. Defendant nos.1 and 2 filed their written statements denying the plaint averments. They stated that the plaintiff is a widower and he has no child. Surajdin is elder brother of plaintiff, Gayadin and he has been regularly torturing and exploiting the plaintiff. He has executed number of sale deeds with the plaintiff and usurped entire money. Being fed-up of Surajdin, plaintiff, Gayadin, took loans and could not repay them and was in trouble. He is a person of sound mind and has executed sale deeds after fully understanding its contents. The defendant nos.1 & 2 have paid sale consideration to him. Surajdin has instituted the suit for ulterior motives. Gayadin is not addicted to liquor and opium. The defendants filed additional written statement stating that Gayadin was never a schizophrenic nor mentally unsound person.
5. Defendant no. 3, Bitola Devi, also filed her written statement claiming herself to be bona-fide purchaser of the property for value.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:
(ii) Whether the sale deed dated 04.07.1992 executed by plaintiff, Gayadin in favour of defendants and duly registered before Sub-Registrar, Banda at Serial no. 1682 is liable to be cancelled on the basis of the plaint averments.
(iii) Whether Surajdin is the nex
The court can conduct an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of a party to a suit before or during the pendency of the suit, as per Order 32, Rule 15 CPC.
The court established that an inquiry is mandatory under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC to determine if a party is incapable of protecting their interests due to mental infirmity before appointing a next frien....
The duty of the court to protect the interests of a minor in a legal proceeding, including appointing a guardian when the existing guardian is not fulfilling their duty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues by the defendant no.1 were already covered by existing issues and did not need to be separately framed. The Court also emp....
Sale deeds executed by a senior family member are valid if conducted for legal necessity and with mental competency, reinforcing the rights of the karta under coparcenary property law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
