SHAKUNTHALA DEVI Vs. K S NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in I. A. No. 7687 of 1999 in O. P. No. 2626 of 1999 on the file of the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the dismissal of the said petition filed under Order 32, Rule 3 (5)CPC seeking to appoint her as guardian to the plaintiff,

(2.) THE petitioner Shakunthala Devi, represented by her daughter Sai Sunitha, has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the suit properties. it is stated that the plaintiff Shakunthala Devi is her mother and the first defendant is her father and she is the eldest daughter to them. It is further stated that the first defendant filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Commissioner at ranchi on the ground that his wife, shakunthala Devi, the plaintiff, was insane and was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, which was allowed and divorce was granted on 30-6-1979. The first schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff as per registered sale deed dated 16-3-1964 and the second schedule property and another adjoining flat No. 2 were also purchased by her later on out of her own funds and as such, she is the owner of the suit properties. After the decree of divorce, the plaintiff was living under the care of the guardian and daughter at Puttaparthi and in or about 1984, when she went to Bangalore for treatment, the first defendant enticed her and took her to Vishakapatnam and thereafter, she has been living in vishakapatnam under his control. The first defendant is alienating plaintiffs assets and using the sale consideration for his personal needs. The first defendant, suppressing the facts that the plaintiff is mentally unsound and incapable of managing herself and her affairs, made her to execute the Power of attorney in favour of the second defendant as per document No. 715/90 dated 26-9-1990 in respect of first schedule of the suit properties. The defendants 1 and 2, colluding together, sold a major portion of the first schedule property. The said Power of Attorney is invalid in law in view of the fact that the plaintiff was insane and was incapable of managing herself and her affairs and the first defendant Is aware of the mental unsoundness of the plaintiff. The first defendant also created equitable mortgage in respect of the second schedule property with Purasawalkam Nidhi Limited. The first defendant already sold another Flat No. 2 adjoining to the second schedule property and received the sale consideration. As such, the first defendant is acting against the interest of the plaintiff. The second defendant is now taking steps to execute sale deeds in respect of the remaining unsold portion of the suit properties and, therefore, the suit has been filed. The suit was filed on 23-4-1999 and on the very same date, I. A. No. 7687 of 1999 was also filed seeking that she may be approved as guardian and next friend of the plaintiff to prosecute the suit.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition in LA. No. 7687 of 1999, it is averred that the plaintiff has got a son by name ganesh Naidu, who is living with the first defendant, and he was also benefited by the sale proceeds of the first schedule property. The another son Ctri is living in Bangalore and he has no interest in the welfare of the plaintiff. Therefore, she has filed this petition seeking to appoint her as guardian to the plaintiff claiming that she is the only person interested in the welfare of the plainiff and fit person for the same.