Allowed

Manohari v. Sugunathalakshmi

Madras HC19 Aug 2024OSA/285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit, the trial court had appointed N. Dillibabu as guardian for the mentally ill 2nd defendant. By consent, this appeal was allowed and the impugned appointment order set aside, with the 5th plaintiff appointed as guardian for the 2nd defendant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; 5th plaintiff appointed guardian for the 2nd defendant; liberty given to plaintiffs to seek transposition of the 2nd defendant as plaintiff.

Manohari Vs Sugunathalakshmi — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

Manohari

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Sugunathalakshmi

2.Satheeswari

¶13

3.Indirani

¶14

4.C.L.Mohan Raj 5.C.L.Prabhu 6.C.L.Udayakumar Represented by his Power of Attorney father Lakshminarayanan

¶15

7.K.Dillibabu Represented by his Guardian N.Dillibabu

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order and decree dated 16.02.2021 in A.No.2599 of 2020 in C.S.No.552 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

¶18

Page 1

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶21

For Appellant	:	Ms.Gopika Nambiar
		for M/s.G.Nanmaran
For R1 to R6	:	Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
For R7	:	Mr.A.Prabhakaran

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶24

This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order in A.No.2599 of 2020 in C.S.No.552 of 2019, dated 16.02.2021.

¶25

2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :

¶26

2.1.The respondents 1 to 6 herein as plaintiffs filed the suit in C.S.No.552 of 2019 before the Original Side of this Court for partition of the suit properties. The appellant herein is the 1^st defendant in the suit. Admittedly, the 2^nd defendant in the suit is also entitled to a share in the suit properties even as per the plaint averments, but he is mentally ill. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs showing one Mr.N.Dillibabu as the

¶27

Page 2

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶30

guardian of 2^nd defendant. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs have no claim as against the 2^nd defendant and that none of the plaintiffs have any adverse interest as against the 2^nd defendant.

¶31

2.2.The 1^st defendant claims exclusive title to one of the items of the

¶32

properties on the basis that the property was given to her by the family as sreedhana.

¶33

2.3.It is admitted that the suit was filed on 06.09.2019 and thereafter, an application in A.No.9502 of 2019 in C.S.No.552 of 2019 was filed by one Mr.N.Dillibabu for permitting him to act as next friend of 2^nd defendant for contesting the suit. The said application was allowed without hearing the 1^st defendant. It appears that the said application was allowed on the basis of no objection given by plaintiffs.

¶34

2.4.It was thereafter, the appellant filed an application in A.No.1201 of 2020 to set aside the order passed in A.No.9502 of 2019 in C.S.No.552 of 2019 and to restore the above application on file and dispose of the same on merits. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances elaborately, allowed the application in A.No.1201 of 2020, and set aside the order dated 21.01.2020 in A.No.9502 of 2019.

¶35

Page 3

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶38

2.5.Thereafter, the application in A.No.9502 of 2019 was supposed to

¶39

be heard afresh.

¶40

2.6.However, an application was filed by the plaintiffs in A.No.2599 of 2020 in C.S.No.552 of 2019 to pass an order appointing Mr.N.Dillibabu or any other person as guardian to the 2^nd defendant except the 1^st defendant. This application was allowed by the order impugned on 16.02.2021. Challenging the same, the above appeal is filed by the 1^st defendant in the suit.

¶41

3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who is the 1^st defendant in the suit, contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is perverse, inasmuch as the previous order dated 24.08.2020 in A.No.1201 of 2020 in C.S.No.552 of 2019, is not even taken note of by the learned Judge. The learned counsel, apart from the contention that the earlier order passed in the very same application was ignored, raised several other grounds by referring to Order 32 Rule 4 of CPC.

¶42

Page 4

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶45

4.Admittedly, the 2^nd defendant is a person of unsound mind and therefore, he has to be represented by a guardian. Even though appointment of a stranger as guardian is opposed by the appellant, the appellant has no objection for the 5^th plaintiff to represent the 2^nd defendant as guardian. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs have no objection for this course. Therefore, by consent of parties, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal, appointing the 5^th plaintiff as guardian for the 2^nd defendant.

¶46

5.Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is allowed and the order in A.No.2599 of 2021 in C.S.No.552 of 2019, dated 16.02.2021, is set aside. However, the 5^th plaintiff in C.S.No.552 of 2019 is appointed as guardian to the 2^nd defendant to represent him in the suit.

¶47

6.This Court has noted the fact that the plaintiffs have no conflicting interest with the 2^nd defendant. Therefore, this Court wants to put an end to this issue being raised later. Having regard to the nature of interest which

¶48

Page 5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶51

we have found, it is open to the plaintiffs to file an application for transposing the 2^nd defendant as one of the plaintiffs, so that there will not be room for any kind of objection being raised at any point of time later by referring to Order 34 Rule 4 of CPC. No costs.

¶52

(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 19.08.2024

¶53

mkn

¶54

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶55

Page 6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶58

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and K. RAJASEKAR, J.

¶59

mkn

¶60

O.S.A.No.285 of 2021

¶61

19.08.2024

¶62

Page 7

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Manohari v. Sugunathalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohari v. Sugunathalakshmi

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

Hiroo Hotchand Advani Vs Integrated Finance Company Limited

M/S.Mira Exports Vs the Authorized Officer

M.S.S.Transport Vs Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture

Sambath Kumar Vs Prabhuramakrishnan

M/S.Tarapore and Co. Vs Bharathi Airtel Limited

R.Shampath Vs The Govrnment of Tamilnadu