Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
CHERUVA – Appellant
Versus
MURALEEDHARAN – Respondent
RSA NO. 1398 OF 2015|AS NO.32 OF 2009|OS NO.377 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S.Unnikrishnan, Chithra S.Babu, C.Dheeraj Rajan, Jayasree Manoj, Jithin Paul Varghese, M.P.Priyanka, Saju Thaliath, K.Sunil, T.P.Shelna
For the Respondents: Alexander Joseph
The court affirmed that legal representation requirements for mentally infirm individuals are crucial for the validity of transactions involving them.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXII Rule 15 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Execution of sale deed by a deaf and dumb person without compliance to legal requirements held invalid - The courts must ensure proper representation of mentally infirm individuals in legal matters. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Limitation - The court ruled that the suit to set aside the sale deed is not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had not been properly represented during execution. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a deaf and dumb individual, executed a sale deed through her brother in compliance with a stipulation from a previous deed. The trial court dismissed her suit due to limitation despite finding her incapacity.
Findings of Court:
The judgment confirmed that the requirements for representation under Order XXXII Rule 15 were not met and the dismissal based on limitation was incorrect.
Issues: Whether the execution of the sale deed was proper given the plaintiff's mental infirmity and lack of appropriate representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the mandates prescribed for representing individuals with mental infirmities, and the execution of documents must comply with prescribed legal norms.
Result: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was restored to the Munsiff Court for reconsideration, highlighting the need for procedural diligence in cases involving individuals with disabilities.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and incapacity of the plaintiff. (Para 2) |
| 2. requirement for proper representation of mentally infirm individuals. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. judgment restoration and procedural compliance. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit to set aside a sale deed, who was non-
suited concurrently by the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, in O.S.No.377/2007, as well as by the Sub Court in A.S.No.32/2009, Muvattupuzha, has come up with the present appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff is a deaf and dumb person, who is incapable of representing on her own. She happened to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 27.07.2004. When the sale deed was executed, it was done through her brother. This was probably because the recital in the document conferring the right, title and interest over the property in her favour, executed by her father, it was stipulated that whenever the property is transferred, the same shall not be done without the junction of the brother of the plaintiff. Accordingly, finding that the plaintiff was not put to notice regarding the true state of affairs, filed the suit on 26.09.2007 seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 27.07.2004.
2.2. In the suit, the 1st defendant contended that he had already sold the property to a third person, who was impleaded as additional 3rd defendant in the suit. The Trial Court found that since the suit was instituted through a next friend, at the time of instituting the suit, no enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was conducted, and therafter proceeded to conduct an enquiry and found that the plaintiff is a deaf and dumb person incapable of representing herself and permitted the next friend to prosecute the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 and A2 were produced and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 documents were produced. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. The Trial Court although found the mental infirmity of the plaintiff, found that the suit is barred by limitation and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.32/2009 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. While preferring the appeal, the plaintiff did not implead the additional 3rd defendant. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 03.01.2013 and hence, the present appeal. In the present appeal, the 3rd defendant in the suit has been impleaded and consequent to his death, the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant were impleaded.
3. Heard, Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan – learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Alexander Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following question of law:
“Without conducting a proper enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are the courts below justified in finding that the unsound minded person was properly represented in the execution of the document in respect of his property whereby his property was transferred to the first respondent”
5. This Court is called upon to consider the question as to whether an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 is to be conducted in respect of a person who is deaf and dumb. The question is no longer res integra. In Mary v. Leelamma and Anr. [ 2020 (4) KHC 176 ], a Division Bench of this Court held that the mental infirmity mentioned in Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC , 1908, should receive a wide interpretation and will include persons who are deaf and dumb.
6. Still further, under Rule 71 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), 1958, the Sub Registrar is bound to communicate the contents of the document to a deaf and dumb person and must endorse in the document regarding the infirmity of the executant. In the present case, while executing the sale deed, which is called in question in the suit, these requirements are not met. Still, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the
