T. SHESHADRI Vs. SRINIVASA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 15/9/2021, passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.202/2017, on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62), allowing I.A.No.10 filed under Sec. 50(1), (4) of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ('the Act for short) read with Sec. 151 of CPC for appointment of psychiatrist who is expert in the field to ascertain the mental capacity of the plaintiff and to submit the report.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration to declare that all the acts done by defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., selling of the property of unsound mind plaintiff without seeking any permission from the Court or appointment of guardian as null and void. The plaintiff also interalia filed I.A.No.10 under Sec. 50(1) and (4) of Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying the Court to appoint a Senior Psychiatrist or a Psychologist an expert in the field to assess the mental condition of the plaintiff and call for report. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by the next friend that the plaintiff is the son of M.R. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Jaya Krishnaswamy and suit schedule A, B and C properties are the properties of M.R. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Jaya Krishnaswmay and both of them are no more. The plaintiff succeeded to the estate of them and he is of unsound mind and he is incapable of understanding things and he is suffering from mental disorder. The alienation made by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2, cannot be considered as a valid alienation and reiterated that without the appointment of guardian to protect the interest of the plaintiff, any alienation made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be considered as valid alienation.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the defendants contending that the very suit itself is not maintainable and the plaintiff has filed an application only with an intention to protract the proceedings. In order to prove the fact that he is of unsound mind, no material is placed before the Court. The defendants filed the written statement contending the very status of the next friend who has filed the suit and question of cheating the plaintiff does not arise and there are no bonafide in the application.