SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. K R RATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the 5th defendant in the suit as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed by him under Order 32, Rule 2 CPC to reject the Plaint.

(2.) ACCORDING to the 5th defendant, the plaintiff, his father, is mentally infirm and incapable of knowing which is to his interest and which is against his interest. He is incapable of protecting himself and such a mental condition is deteriorating for the past three years which is known to the entire villagers. In fact the respondent/plaintiff was looked after in the house by his widow daughter all these years and it is only the 5th defendant is collecting the rent on his behalf.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff resisted the said suit denying the allegations made in the said I.A., It is also stated that the defendant has made false allegations with bad intention. THE plaintiff reserves his right to sue for damages for such false averments. It is only by such ill treatment meted out to him, he is indisposed of and is taking treatment in a private nursing home at Gobichettipalayam.