SURINDER KAUR Vs. S RAJDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 21, 2000. By that order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, being I.A.7974/99 in Suit No. 1806/99, seeking appointment of a Medical Board to determine the mental capability of respondent No. 1 herein, Rajdev Singh. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are of follows:-

(2.) Appellants No. 1 to 3 and respondents No. 1 to 4 are closely related to each other. The appellants and respondent No. 4 are real sisters of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No. 1, while respondent No. 5 is a partnership firm in regard to which the appellants claimed to be partners alongwith respondents No. 1 to 4.

(3.) On July 9, 1937 the Secretary in State granted a perpetual lease of plot in block No. 124, Janpath in favour of Sardar Bahadur Ranjit Singh, father of the appellants, respondents No. 1 & 4 and grandfather of respondents No. 2 & 3. A Hotel was constructed by S.B. Ranjit Singh which was christenned as Hotel Imperial. On August 16, 1968 S.B. Ranjit Singh entered into a lease agreement with respondent No. 5, .a partnership firm comprising of the appellants, respondents No. 1,3 and 4 & his wife Smt. Rajinder Kaur. On April 30, 1972 Smt. Rajinder Kaur retired from the partnership firm and S.B. Ranjit Singh was inducted as a partner on the same date. On July 1, 1979 firm was again reconstituted when S.B. Ranjit Singh retired from the firm and respondent No. 2 was admitted in his place. The lease was renewed from time to time. After the death of Sardar Bahadur Ranjit Singh, Property devolved upon Rajdev Singh, respondent No. 1. It needs to be noticed that respondent No. 1 on February 18, 1999 executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondents No. 2 & 3 who are his son. The appellants on August 16,1999 filed the suit inter-alia for declaration and permanent injunction seeking to restrain respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the property in question. In the suit the appellants inter-alia claimed that the appellants and the partnership firm have a vested right to have the lease renewed on the expiry of the term of 5 years ending on June 30,1999. In the suit the appellants filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code asserting that respondent No. 1 was suffering from mental infirmity and incapacity. It was prayed that a medical board be appointed to examine first respondent and after receipt of the .medical report, in the event of respondent No. 1 being declared to be suffering from mental infirmity and incapacity, a guardian be appointed to represent him in the case. The learned Single Judge by him order dated March 21, 2000 rejected the application of the appellants holding that the application was made for ulterior purpose of embarrassing the respondents No. 1 to 3, who are defendants in the suit. The learned Single Judge also observed that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case to show that respondent No. 1 was incapable of protecting his interest and that he ought to be examined by the Court or by a Medical, Board for the purpose of determining whether a guardian needs to be appointed to protect his interest at this stage.