In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Reserved on: 07.03.2024 Delivered on : 03.06.2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.R.P.No.690 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3508 of 2022 -----

1.M.N.Renuka

2.N.Rajesh Kannan ... Petitioners /Plaintiffs -Vs-

1.T.Narayanan (mentally ill) by next friend and Guardian M.N.Renuka

2.T.Ramesh

3.T.Murugan

4.T.Udhaya Kumar

5.M.Shankar

6.M.Damodaran ... Respondents /Defendants PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions filed praying to set aside the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.12360 of 2018 in O.S.No.6562 of 2013 dated 23.10.2021 pending on the file of XX Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr.V.Manohar for R4 R1 to R3, R5 and R6 – No appearance.

ORDER

The above Civil Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.12360 of 2018 in O.S.No.6562 of 2013 dated 23.10.2021 pending on the file of XX Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam, Chennai, whereby, the petition seeking to appoint court guardian for 1^st defendant was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs/Revision petitioners filed I.A.No.12360 of 2018 praying to appoint a fit person as the guardian of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant to defend the proceedings during the pendency of the suit.

3. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:-

(a) The Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.6562 of 2013 before XX Additional City Civil Court at Allikulam, Chennai, for partition and other reliefs. 1^st petitioner is the wife of 1^st defendant. The marriage between the 1^st petitioner and 1^st defendant was performed on 04.07.1990 and the 2^nd revision petitioner/2^nd plaintiff is the son of 1^st petitioner and 1^st defendant/1^st respondent.

(b) According to the 1^st plaintiff/1^st revision petitioner, the 1^st defendant though appeared to be normal, his behaviour and attitude created doubt in the mind of the 1^st petitioner and it is known that 1^st defendant is undergoing treatment for Schizophrenia and is suffering from mental illness. Since the 1^st defendant is not in a position to understand what is happening around him and is under constant treatment, the plaintiffs initially filed I.A.No.1032 of 2014 to appoint herself as the guardian of 1^st defendant to defend the proceedings and the application was withdrawn on advice to file the present IA.No.12360 of 2018 in O.S.No.6562 of 2013.

(c) The defendants/respondents filed counter in the I.A., stating that the suit is not maintainable as against 1^st defendant who is admittedly suffering from mental health disorder and that the petition to appoint guardian in I.A.No.1032/2014 was dragged-on for more than 4 years and the plaintiff is not genuine enough to pursue the matter and only to delay the issue and to harass the defendants. It is pure abuse of process of law.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the learned Judge, trial court, without considering the reasons set out by the petitioners in I.A.No.12360 of 2018 that the 1^st plaintiff's husband was mentally ill and to appoint her as guardian of the 1^st defendant, dismissed the petition. It is submitted that the plaintiffs/petitioners has right of share over the property that belongs to the first defendant. After 8 years of the institution of the suit, the learned Judge is questioning about the maintainability of the suit which is erroneous. The petitioners/plaintiffs in order to protect the interest of the first defendant from the other defendants who are trying to alienate and dispose of the property through a sale deed sold the property in favour of the 5^th and 6^th defendant, hence, the suit has been filed by the petitioners and the application to appoint as guardian of the 1^st defendant – husband of the 1^st petitioner/1^st plaintiff. The defendants are trying to dispossess the ancestral property by denying the first defendant's share and the