KARUPPA GOUNDAN Vs. PERIASWAMI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A. S. No. 9 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Erode, in O. S. No. 586 of 1950.

(2.) In Servarayapalem village, Erode taluk, Coimbatore Dt. there is one Oomai Malaya Goundan. He, as his name itself shows, is a deaf mute. He is also found to be lame, and is described as an idiot. It has been found by the learned District Munsif that he was not in a position to form a rational judgment and capable of safeguarding his own interest. Therefore after an elaborate enquiry in I. A. No. 1685 of 1952, the learned District Munsif of Erode came to the conclusion that Oomai Malaya Goundan was not in a position to understand his own interest or act independently and therefore appointed a guardian-ad-litem. This was the subject matter of a revision petition to this court and I upheld the order of the District Munsif of Erode. That decision is reported in In re Periasami Goundan, In other words, this Oomai Malaya Goundan has been found to be a person of unsound mind and has got to be represented by a guardian-ad-litem.

(3.) Oomai Malaya Goundan's mother is Angammal and his wife is Najakkal. It is stated that he has also a daughter by that wife. In these circumstances, these three persons purport to have executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex. A 4 on 2-9-1930. Earlier they had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the first defendant under Ex. A. 3 dated 20-6-1930. The purchaser has been undertaking to redeem this usufructuary mortgage.