N.R.SADANANDAN Vs. ANANDAVALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is one to set aside four registered documents executed by the plaintiff and others and for consequential partition. They are two deeds of partition executed amongst the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their mother. The remaining two are deeds of sale executed by the plaintiff, the

(2.) ND defendant and their mother in favour of the first defendant. The two deeds of partition were executed on 13.02.2003 and the two deeds of sale were executed on 14.02.2003. 2. The plaintiff who was residing with the second defendant was directed to appear in court in person. The court below thought it fit to have the mental disposition of the plaintiff assessed by a medical team. The plaintiff was referred to a medical board who opined that she was not mentally sound. It was opined that the plaintiff was suffering from Schizophrenia characterised by delusions and hallucinations. The court below on the basis of Ext.X1 report of the medical board should have granted leave to the plaintiff under Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C.

(3.) THE court below has instead in answer to issue No.1 framed in the suit held that the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind on the date of the plaint. I construe the order passed as one granting leave under the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C. It is the subjective satisfaction of the court that matters for granting leave to the plaintiff under the said circumstances. The question that would be relevant in the suit is as to whether the plaintiff was of unsound mind as on the date of execution of the four documents in question. That would be decided by the court below in answer to issue No.1 framed in the suit.