CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1954) 02 KL CK 0002

Thirumala Gounder Ramaswami Gounder vs Mohammad Meera Lebba and Another

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 February 1954

HON’BLE JUDGES
Joseph, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.P. No. 1002 of 1953

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 359 words

Joseph, J.—This is a petition by the 1st Defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1950 of the Kottayam District Court for transfer of proceedings under Order 32, Rule 15 of the CPC in the said suit to the District Court, Alleppey, for consolidation and disposal along with Lunacy Act Petition No. 1 of 1953 pending in the latter Court or in the alternative for stay of the proceedings in O.S. No. 30 of 1950 till the disposal of the petition in the Alleppey District Court. The petition is opposed by the counter-Petitioners.

The Lunacy petition relates to the mental condition of the 8th Defendant in the suit. His son (2nd counter-Petitioner in this petition) intervened in the suit with a petition to appoint him as guardian of the 8th Defendant for the suit. The proceeding under the Lunacy Act was also initiated by him and that relates to all the assets of the 8th Defendant.

2.

On behalf of the Petitioner, reliance was placed on the decision in - Harnand Lal Vs. Chaturbhuj where similar proceedings in a suit were stayed till the disposal of proceedings under the Lunacy Act. The scope of an enquiry under Order 32, Rule 15 of the CPC has been explained in - Chapalamadugu Govindayya (deceased) and Another Vs. Suddapalli Ramamurthi and Others,

3.

The scope of an enquiry under Rule 15 of Order 32 is not the same as that contemplated under the Lunacy Act. Even if the person is not declared to be a lunatic under the Lunacy Act, it is open for the Court trying the suit to appoint a guardian to represent him in the suit, if the Court is satisfied that he is incapable of protecting his interests by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity. The enquiry in the suit commenced in 1952 and was practically concluded when this petition was filed on 20-10-1953. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising the inherent power of the Court to stay the proceedings in the suit or to transfer the same to the District Court of Alleppey.

The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.