What is duty of court when one of parties in suit is lunatic?

In Rami Reddy's Case, the suit had been brought on behalf of the plaintiff by his next friend on the obvious allegation that the plaintiff, because of reasons of mental infirmity, could not sue directly himself. Obviously in such a situation the issue of the mental infirmity of the party is thus brought into the field on behalf of the party himself and, if contested, must be gone into. The issue of unsoundness of mind of the parties in this case is primarily between the court and the party and is certainly not a lis between the parties themselves. The legislature in its wisdom has conferreds larger and paternal power on the court to see that each party has the capacity to safeguard its legal interest and is no way handicapped by reason of any mental infirmity. This beneficial and, indeed, paternal power is wholly vested in the court and it is in its discretion alone, where it finds that any one of the parties is suffering from a weakness of mind, to proceed for taking steps to safeguard the interest of such a party. In the instant case, the lower court has failed to exercise its discretion which is vested with it and to refer a party to medical examination in order to adjudge as to the unsoundness of mind of the plaintiff.

Madras High Court

M.S. Nadar @ Subramaniya Nadar vs S. Saraswathi on 14 June, 1997

Equivalent citations: 1997 (2) CTC 132, (1997) IIMLJ 385,

Bench: A Lakshmanan

Print Page

When burden of proof is on guardian of lunatic person to prove that he is lunatic?

 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision P. P. Ar. Rm. Sp. Ramanathan Chettiar v. A. R. R. M. Somasundaram Chettiar, AIR 1941 Madras 505, wherein it was held that if the Court does not hold an enquiry under Order XXXII. Rule 15. C.P.C. but relies on the previous history of the litigation and forms its own opinion after looking at the defendant and eliciting answers to some questions, it is not an enquiry contemplated under Order XXXII, Rule 15. C.P.C. The Court should have given the opportunity for production of a doctor's certificate. In Chapalamadugu Govindayya and another v. Suddapalli Ramamurthi and others. AIR 1941 Madras 524, it was held that before a next friend can represent a person Incapable of protecting his rights, it is not necessary that there should be a preliminary inquiry by the Court that the person by reason, of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity is incapable of protecting his interests. All that is needed is that there should be some prima facie proof such as to satisfy the Court that the person was by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity is Incapable of protecting his interest. In Smt. Godawari Devi v. Smt. Radha Pyari Devi and others, AIR 1985 Patna 366, it has been held that the defendant cannot compel the Court to make an enquiry about the unsoundness of the mind of the plaintiff as it is the matter between the Court and the person who is alleged to be of unsound mind. These cases have no application to the facts of the present case. The Court was to satisfy prima facie itself on the basis of the evidence adduced by the applicant that the person was of unsound mind. The mere fact that the person has filed an application for appointment of guardian does not oblige the Court to ash the applicant to produce the evidence. It is for the applicant to produce the evidence. The applicant herself filed an affidavit in support of her version and filed medical prescriptions. The affidavit was converted and the medical prescriptions itself did not indicate that the defendant was of unsound mind.

 The trial court had directed the applicant to produce the defendant. The defendant was not produced before the Court. In this petition, it is stated that the Presiding Officer, who had passed the order, had been changed and thereafter the next Presiding Officer only heard the arguments and on the oral request made by the applicant, an opinion was expressed that it was not necessary to produce such defendant. There is nothing in the order-sheet to indicate that the Presiding Officer had refused to examine the defendant. It was for the applicant to have filed an application to produce the defendant. Even before the revlsional authority, the applicant did not make such prayer.

Allahabad High Court

Khokha Rai vs Xiith Additional District Judge, ... on 16 December, 1998

Equivalent citations: 1998 (4) AWC 657,  AIR1999All160, 1999 (35) ALR 318, 1998 AWC657All, 1998 4 AWC657All

Bench: S Narain

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by court for appointing guardian to lunatic in civil suilt

Civil - unsoundness of mind - Order 32 Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - to declare a person lunatic only evidence of medical expert be upheld - Order of Judge dismissing petition for appointment of next friend set aside - Judge failed to examine plaintiff under Order 32 Rule 15 of Code - Order passed is illegal - opinion of doctor held to be opinion of expert under Section 45 of Evidence Act - petition remanded to Court below.

 From these decisions, the fallowing principals emerge :

(1) Order XXXII, Rule 15 C. P. C. places persons of unsound mind or persons so adjudged in the same position as minors for purposes of Rules. 1 to 14.

(2) Order XXXII Rule 15 C. P. C. applies not only to a person adjudged to be of unsound mind, as under the old Code, but also to a person of weak mind.

(3) Where it is alleged that a party to a suit is of unsound mind, and the other party denies it, the Court must hold a Judicial inquiry, and come to a definite conclusion, as to whether by reason of the unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, he is incapable of protecting his interests in the suit.

(4) Mental infirmity may even be due to physical defects, if it renders him incapable of receiving any communication, or of communicating his wishes or thoughts to others.

(5) Whether a person is of unsound mind or mentally infirm for the purpose of the rule and the extent of the infirmity has to be found by the Court on inquiry.

(6) Where the question of unsoundness of mind arises not only under Order XXXII, Rule 15 C. P. C. but is also one of the issues in the suit, the Court has amole jurisdiction to enquire into that question, and for that purpose seek medical opinion.

(7) The enquiry should consist not only of the examination of the witnesses produced by either party, but also of the examination of the alleged lunatic by the judge, either in open court or chambers, and as Courts are generally presided over by lay-men, as a matter of precaution, the evidence of medical expert should be taken.

(8) Of course, the opinion, of a doctor, as is the opinion of any other expert, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is only a relevant piece of evidence.

(9) The Court may also compel the attendance cf the alleged lunatic before it, and to submit himself for medical examination. If the alleged lunatic is in custody, the Court may direct the next friend or any other person having custody to produce him before the medical expert for examination.

(10) Where the precaution of judicial enquiry is not observed, the person cannot be declared lunatic, and a guardian cannot be appointed for him.

(11) When a person is adjudged a lunatic Irregularity and improperly, and notice was not served on him, and a guardian alone was allowed to appear and defend the suit and decree was passed owing to the guardian not gutting up a proper defence, the alleged lunatic can treat the decree against him as an ex parte decree, and have it set aside under O. IX Rule 13 C. P. C.

Andhra High Court

Duvvuri Rami Reddi vs Duvvudu Papi Reddi And Ors. on 20 April, 1962

Equivalent citations: AIR 1963 AP 160

Bench: Venkatesam

Print Page