CHINNAMMAL Vs. CHIDAMBARA KOTHANAR (SINCE ALLEGED TO HAVE BECOME INSANE AND CAUSED TO BE REPRESENTED BY GRAGHAVA KOTHANAR AS HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has had a long history. It was commenced in 1918 and what we hope is the final order, we are now pronouncing in 1936.

(2.) Before dealing with the appeal we must advert to a certain matter that has happened. The appellant filed an affidavit and persuaded the office to treat the respondent as a lunatic without notice to his counsel on the record. Some person was appointed as his guardian ad litem, whose name was entered in the cause-list in the place of the respondent's counsel. The respondent was not a lunatic so found by inquisition and the procedure adopted, we need hardly point out, is extremely irregular. At the request of Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, the respondent's counsel, we directed that his name should appear in this day's list and whether the respondent is a lunatic or not, he has now had the benefit of being represented by his counsel on the record. His guardian ad litem, we may observe, did neither appear in Court, nor was he represented.

(3.) The question argued in the appeal is whether the plaintiff can be deemed to have carried out the direction in the decree in question in regard to the deposit of money into Court. That decree was passed by the High Court on 17 January, 1928, and it provided that on the plaintiff depositing into Court Rs. 500 within the time mentioned there, the defendant was to execute, and get registered, a deed of conveyance in her (the plaintiff s) favour; the decree further provided that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a certain amount by way of costs.