RAM PRAKASH YADAV & ANR Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the order dated 12.2.2019 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Revision No.144 of 2018 (Ram Prakash Yadav and others vs. Sitaram) and the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit no.70 of 1999.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased a piece of land from Sitaram and when they sought to enforce the sale deed, Sitaram, the defendant filed the aforesaid suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that he is of unsound mind and the petitioners very cleverly had got his signatures on blank papers and later on, the alleged sale deed was got registered.? It has been submitted that the said suit was filed in 1999 by the plaintiff claiming that he being of unsound mind, he is filing the suit through his next friend and kin Ram Singh. It was alleged in the said suit that the defendant no.1 is a Typist in Civil Court and had fraudulently obtained the signatures of Sitaram on some papers and got the sale deed executed thereafter. Being of unsound mind, the plaintiff could not at that time understand that his signatures being put on some papers. After 19 years of the said suit being filed which initially could not have been entertained without guardian and next friend, the alleged Ram Singh being impleaded an Application no.A-88 was filed under Order 32 Rules 3 and 4 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. for declaration of Ram Singh to be the guardian of the plaintiff and to be appointed as his next friend in the said suit. The petitioners moved an objection Paper no.C-91, saying that the plaintiff was not a person of unsound mind. Since it was being seriously disputed that the plaintiff was of unsound mind, Rule 15 of Order 32 of C.P.C. required that an enquiry be conducted in the matter by the court concerned before any orders could be passed on the said application. However, the said application was allowed without conducting such enquiry on the ground that on 29.1.2018 (it is alleged that the date is actually 29.1.2008), a hearing was conducted by the trial court in which, the plaintiff Sitaram was summoned in person and it was found from his demeanor that he was of unsound mind.?