G V LAKSHMINARAYANAN Vs. G V NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in C. S. No. 121 of 2006 is the appellant in O. S. A. No. 5 of 2007. The suit has been laid for a declaration to declare that the first defendant, who is the first respondent in the appeal, is mentally retarded and incapable of taking care of her personal and proprietary interest and consequently to appoint the plaintiff as the lawful and legal guardian of the person and properties of the first defendant and also for other reliefs. Pending suit, O. A. No. 147 of 2006 was filed by the appellant to grant an order of interim direction directing a panel of doctors from the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk or any other panel of doctors as deemed fit by this Court to examine the first defendant/first respondent and submit a report before this Court about the state of her mental health. The learned single Judge dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the appellant has to prove the case on his own on the basis of documents and materials in the trial and, considering the age of the first respondent, it is not proper and appropriate to subject her for medical examination to find out whether she is mentally retarded person or not. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE further few facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-The appellant is the son of the first respondent. The third respondent is his sister and the second respondent is the brother of the first respondent. The third respondent is also the wife of the second respondent and the fourth and fifth respondents are their sons. The sixth respondent is the daughter of the second and third respondents, who was given in marriage to the seventh respondent, the brother of the appellant. Thus all the parties are very closely related to each other.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, his father and the father of the second respondent constituted a joint Hindu Family and all the parties along with their close relatives lived in a common family house and the arrangement continued even after the death of the appellant's father and also the death of the second respondent's father. The business was also jointly managed as a family business.