Dismissed

C.v.Pavithran v. C.v.Premakumari

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021RP/198/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissing challenge to judgment that rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of mental capacity. Court held Order XXXII Rule 15 enquiry not an inquisition and lower court satisfied plaintiff was sound of mind.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as the lower court's finding of mental stability was sufficient without inquiring under Order XXXII Rule 15.

C.v.Pavithran Vs C.v.Premakumari — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 198 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2018 IN FAO (RO) 71/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

C.V.PAVITHRAN

¶9

S/O. JANAKI,ELECTRICIAN, JANAKI SADAN, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 643

¶10

BY ADVS. P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000) SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:

¶12

1 C.V.PREMAKUMARI

¶13

D/O. JANAKI,NO OCCUPATION, ASWATHI, 6TH MILE, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM, P.O.KOTTAYAMPOIL, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 691

¶14

2 C.V.CHANDRAMATHI,

¶15

D/O. JANAKI, SANDRA, KOMMAL VAYAL , P.O.TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102

¶16

3 C.V.BALAKRISHNAN S/O. JANAKI, NO.3,EUROPEAN LINE, ST.THOMAS MOUNT, MADRA-600 016

¶17

4 C.V.SASIDHARAN S/O.JANAKI,RESIDING AT AISWARYA, PACHOPOIKA, PATHRIYAD,KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 741

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP NO. 198 OF 2019

ORDER

The judgment of this Court dated 07.12.2018 sought to be reviewed on the ground that a judicial enquiry as mandated under Order XXXII Rule 15 was not conducted by the trial court.

¶23

It is a case, wherein the brother came up as next friend of the plaintiff-sister, challenging a document of alienation executed. On the basis of the application submitted by the respondents, the original plaintiff was summoned in person. She appeared in compliance of the said order and had given rational answers on every question put up to her, based on which, it was found by the learned Munsiff that she is mentally stable and sound and thereby rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶24

¶25

RP NO. 198 OF 2019

¶26

During the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff passed away. So the matter was remanded back to the trial court so as to proceed with the issue through the legal heirs. It was challenged in FAO(RO) No.71/2018 before this Court. This court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court. Ultimately the suit gone out of the picture being a one filed in the capacity of next friend of a person, who is mentally and physically sound.

¶27

The review petitioner relied on the decisions rendered by this Court in Kunhamma v. Rosakutty [1997 KHC 9] and also a Division Bench of this Court drawn in Raveendran v. Sobhana and Another [ 2008(1) KHC 607] and advanced an argument that there should be a judicial enquiry as mandated under the Order

¶28

¶29

RP NO. 198 OF 2019

¶30

XXXII Rule 15. It is a matter, wherein the learned Munisiff has prima facie found the person physically and mentally capable of doing her affairs and she had given rational answers to all questions put up. The enquiry which has to be conducted under Order XXXII Rule 15 shall not be equated with an inquisition proceedings under Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, or the like provision in the Indian Lunacy Act. It is only a prima facie satisfaction whether the person is capable of doing his/her affairs personally. The legal position is very much settled by this Court in FAO.No.15/2021 dated 31.08.2021 (given for reporting). Hence, the review fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

C.v.Pavithran v. C.v.Premakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Pavithran v. C.v.Premakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.P.Sherfudheen Vs Venugopalan and Others

Abdul Rasheed Vs Gowriamma Sankariamma

Sreenivasan Nair Vs Salooja T.

Shriram General Insurance Vs Praveen E.C.

Sultha and Another Vs Thilakan

Roobina Vs Anikkadan Moosa Son Abdul Nazar