MOHAN LAL Vs. MOTI LAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohan Lal, the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 32, Rule 15 CPC and has appointed respondent-defendant No.2, Phoolchand's sister, Smt. Sobhagwati as his guardian. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2013 whereby the learned Judge has taken the written statement filed by Sobhagwati on record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Moti Lal and Rudi, had filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 23.12.1998, and for permanent injunction against the petitioner (who was arrayed as defendant No.1), and against Phoolchand (who was arrayed as defendant No.2) in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, Manna Nai, the father of plaintiff No.1 and the husband of plaintiff No.2, has certain land in Village Goverdhanpura, Patwar Halka Sirsali, in khasra No.587, 851 and 551. After his death, the property devolved on to the plaintiffs and Phoolchand, the son of respondent-plaintiff No.2 and the brother of respondent-plaintiff No.1. They further claimed that Phoolchand had become mentally unsound. Taking advantage of the fact that Phoolchand was of unsound mind, the defendant No.1 (the petitioner before this Court) entered into a sale-deed with Phoolchand on 28.12.1998, and allegedly bought a share in the property. However, when the illegal transaction was discovered, the civil suit was filed. During the course of the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 32, Rule 15 CPC wherein they claimed that since Phoolchand was of unsound mind, his sister Sobhagwati should be appointed as his guardian. By order dated 8.1.2004 the learned Magistrate allowed the said application and appointed Sobhagwati as his guardian. Since the present petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he challenged the same before this Court. By order dated 24.1.2007 this Court set aside the appointment, and directed the learned trial court to hold an inquiry and thereafter to pass the necessary order. After holding the inquiry, by order dated 7.4.2011 the learned trial court again appointed Sobhagwati as the guardian. Again since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2011, he challenged the same before this Court. However by order dated 26.9.2011 this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 32, Rule 15 CPC claiming therein that by order dated 7.4.2011 merely a notice was issued to Sobhagwati, but even before she was appointed as Phoolchand's guardian, she had submitted the written statement on behalf of Phoolchand. Therefore, according to the petitioner she was under the influence of the plaintiffs. Hence, she could not defend Phoolchand's rights. Therefore, she should not be appointed as his guardian. By order dated 19.10.2013 the petitioner's application was dismissed by the learned trial court. Subsequently, by order dated 14.11.2013 the learned trial court has also taken the written statement filed by Sobhagwati on behalf of Phoolchand. Hence, this petition before this Court.