R GOVINDARAJAN Vs. DEVAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has to be allowed on a very short ground that the suit filed the respondent is nor maintainable. In the plaint, it is repeatedly stated that the defendant is a lunatic and the plaintiffs are his curators and guardians. In paragraph 4 of the plaint specific averment is: "The defendant is a lunatic suffering from the said disease for the 14 years". Again it is stated: "The plaintiffs are acting as the curators and guardians defendant for the past 14 years". In paragraph 5, it is repeated that the plaintiffs are curators and guardians of the defendant. Again in paragraph 7 it is alleged that the plaintiffs are cultivating the suit lands as guardians and curators of the defendant. In paragraph is stated that the plaintiffs are appointed as curators and guardians of the defendant 10.6.1983 under the registered partition deed. Thus, the entire plaint is on the footing that the defendant is a lunatic and the plaintiffs curators and guardians. Yet, very curiously, the petitioner is shown in his name defendant, without anybody representing him as his next friend or guardian. Plaintiffs " case is that the defendant is a lunatic and they are the guardians of the defendant, they cannot maintain the suit for bare injunction against the defendant as such them to take steps under other provisions of law to establish their right to take possession the property, if they are not in possession of the property. But, according to them, already in possession of the property and are cultivating the same. In these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to maintain the suit against the defendant and ask injunction against him during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) THE procedure prescribed under O.32, Code of Civil Procedure has not been Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any orders in the suit which is not maintainable on the face of it. This does not mean that I have accepted the allegation of the plaintiffs the petitioner herein is a lunatic. I do not at all hold that the petitioner is a lunatic the respondents to prove it. I am only pointing out that the respondents are not entitled get any relief in the suit as framed now. On the allegations made by them in the plaint, suit is misconceived.

(3.) THE civil revision petition is allowed. THE orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.548 and of the lower appellate Court in C.M.A.No.68 of 1989 are set aside. I.A.No.548 stands dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. V.K - " Petition allowed.