KATAVATH VALAPPIL MOHANAN Vs. THARAMMAL RANJITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the remand order passed by the Additional District Court, Thalassery through judgment dated 25/06/2013 in AS No. 39/2005, the respondent / plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) AS No. 39/2005 was filed by the defendant in OS No. 92/2003 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. The plaintiff in the suit is one Mohanan aged 53, who is illiterate and unsound minded. His wife Santha aged 42 has represented him in the suit as his next friend under Order XXXII R.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by alleging that the said Mohanan is suffering from mental illness and has been undergoing medical treatment for mental illness continuously. An affidavit was filed by the said next friend, when the plaint was presented before the Trial Court by affirming that she has no interest adverse to that of the plaintiff. It seems that the Trial Court permitted the next friend to present the plaint for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Another IA as IA No. 1229/2003 was also filed by the next friend along with the plaint for receiving the plaint as well as the IA seeking an order of temporary injunction along with it. In the affidavit in support of that IA also, it has been stated that the next friend has filed the suit for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It seems that on the date of filing itself, the Trial Court allowed the said IA.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he had title and possession over the plaint schedule properties in which a building was also put up. According to the next friend, on 28/08/2003 while she along with her son were doing some minor works in the newly constructed house situated in the plaint schedule property, the defendant appeared there and told them that he had obtained the sale deed in respect of that property and building from the plaintiff on 11/08/2003. Then only she came to know about such a sale deed. According to the next friend, the plaintiff was suffering from severe mental illness and, therefore, he could not have executed any document by exercising his free consent. It was also alleged that a meagre consideration of Rs.75,000/- alone was mentioned in the document even though the property was worth rupees lakhs and lakhs, and even that amount shown in the sale deed was also not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Immediately, she applied for getting a copy of the document allegedly executed, and on getting the copy, she rushed to the Trial Court with the suit. The suit was filed for the cancellation of the said sale deed which the defendant got executed from the plaintiff and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.