2026:MHC:711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 270 of 2026 and CMP.No.1307 of 2026

1. M. Kalisamy

2. M. Palanisamy ..Petitioner(s)

Vs Subbathal (Died)

1. Rangammal

2. A. Duraisamy

3. Selvaraj

4. M. Pappannan ..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 09-09-2025 made in IA.No.155 of 2016 in OS No.48 of 2014 on the file of the Learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s): M.Rajasekar For Respondent(s): C.R.Prasanan for R2

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking appointment of guardian to third respondent herein, who is suffering from mental illness.

2. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Periasamy Gounder. They also sought for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. Since the third respondent, who was arrayed as first defendant in the suit, is a person of unsound mind, the respondents 1 and 2 filed application seeking appointment of guardian to him. The trial court, based on Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/ defendants

3 and 4 have come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this court to Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC, submitted that without examining the person, who is stated to be mentally unsound mind, the court below ought not have appointed the guardian.

4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the documents filed before the trial court Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 which includes medical records would conclusively prove that the third respondent is suffering from mental illness. Therefore, the trial court is justified in appointing a guardian.

5. The copies of Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 filed before the trial court are included in the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent. A perusal of the same would indicate that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.1 Gobichettipalayam in the year 2016 and based on examination and also certificate issued by Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Erode, the learned Judicial Magistrate rendered a finding that he was suffering from mental illness and hence, the order was passed for keeping him in mental asylum. Exhibits P1 to P4 were relating to the year 2016. However, there is no material on records to suggest what is the present mental state of affairs of the third respondent. The certificate issued by the doctor dated 19.08.2016 marked as Exhibit P3 would indicate that the third respondent was suffering from mental disease of schizophrenia. Now, nearly nine years have gone. What is the present mental state of affairs of the third respondent has to be ascertained by the court below. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer Order XXXII Rule 3 and Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC which reads as follows:- “O.32 R.15 of CPC: Rules 1 to 14, (except rule 2-A) to apply to persons of unsound mind.- Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued."

Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC: Guardian for the suit to be appointed by Court for minor defendant.

(1) Where the defendant is a minor the Court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor.

(2) An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff.

(3) Such