Allowed

Muriyankandathil Sathyan v. Valsala (Mentally Infirm)

Kerala HC20 Jan 2016OP(C)/514/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this original petition and set aside an interlocutory order dismissing an application to appoint a guardian. The court directed the trial court to conduct an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC regarding the defendant's unsound mind.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Learned Sub Judge directed to conduct enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC.

Muriyankandathil Sathyan Vs Valsala (Mentally… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 514 of 2015 (O)

¶6

I.A. NO.1120/2014 IN O.S. NO.298/2012 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MURIYANKANDATHIL SATHYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MURIYANKANDATHIL PADMANABHAN, MURIYANKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARAKKODE P.O., VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

VALSALA (MENTALLY INFIRM), AGED 48 YEARS, WIFE OF SUDHAKARAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SUDHAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, SON OF MURIYANKANDATHIL PADMANABHAN, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

rs.

¶14

OP(C).No. 514 of 2015 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 03/11/2012 IN OS NO. 298 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF MANJERI.

¶18

EXT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 05/07/2013 FILED BY DEFENDANTS 2,4,6 AND 8 IN OS.298 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF MANJERI.

¶19

EXT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 09/10/2014 ACCOMPANYING I.A. 1120 OF 2014 IN OS. 298 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF MANJERI.

¶20

EXT P4:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 90/01/2015 IN IA NO 1120 OF 2014 IN OS NO. 298 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF MANJERI.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶26

O.P.(C)No.514 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.298 of 2012 of Sub Court, Manjeri. The suit is for partition. The petitioner filed an application to appoint a guardian for the 9^th defendant who is said to be of unsound mind. By the impugned order the court has dismissed it.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

The order passed by the learned Sub Judge is very strange.

¶32

It runs thus:

¶33

“D9 not produced. D9 already set ex parte. Interlocutory Application dismissed. No costs.”

¶34

It is not known to whom direction was issued to produce the 9^th defendant. The learned Sub Judge was bound to conduct an enquiry into the allegation that the 9^th defendant is of an unsound mind. Instead of doing so he has passed the impugned order which does not make any sense. It is liable to be set aside.

¶35

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Sub Judge is directed to conduct an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶36

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

cms

Muriyankandathil Sathyan v. Valsala (Mentally Infirm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muriyankandathil Sathyan v. Valsala (Mentally Infirm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.E. Balakrishna Marar Vs Payyoli Meethal Laila

Ammini Vs Dr.Sethu Ratnam

Bhasurendra Babu Vs the Merchants Association

P.v.Cherian Vs George Babu

Michale Vs Jose @ Kujappu

Sreeni Radhakrishnan Vs T.R Sini