C.V.Pavithran vs C.V.Premakumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 19148 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                         RP NO. 198 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2018 IN FAO (RO) 71/2018 OF HIGH
                           COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

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

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



RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:

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

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

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

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


     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
                                      2



                                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.

2. 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.

RP NO. 198 OF 2019

3. 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.

4. 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 RP NO. 198 OF 2019

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