[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madan vs Ruplibai on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3623
1 MP-2484-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 2484 of 2025
MADAN
Versus
RUPLIBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Parmar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for respondents no.1 to
5 and 7.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the
impugned order dated 25.03.2025 whereby an application under Order 14
Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of the
defendant/petitioner herein has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that plaint (Annexure P-5) has been filed
by the respondents for declaration and injunction with regard to agricultural
land Survey No.6/2 Rakba 1.743 hectare situated at village Junidhaal Patwari
Halka No.182, district Dewas. The predecessor in interest in the aforesaid
disputed land Jamsingh (husband of plaintiff no.1, father of plaintiffs no.2 to
5 and brother of defendant no.1) executed the alleged will in favour of
plaintiffs and defendants whereby some portion of the land has been given to
the plaintiffs and some portion has been given to the defendants.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3623
2 MP-2484-2025
3. Counsel for the petitioner inviting attention towards the deposition
of Gajraj (PW-1) paras 11 and 12 submits that he has admitted that
respondent no.1 wife of Jamsingh and respondent no.2 S/o Jamsingh are
mentally challenged and they are not represented by any next friend to
protect their interest and similarly daughter of Jamsingh has also not been
impleaded in the case. He further submits that before the trial Court he has
raised these objections by way of the aforesaid application, but the same has
been dismissed without observing the prevailing legal position and prays for
allowing this petition by setting aside the impugned order and directing the
plaintiffs to implead plaintiffs no.1 and 2 through next friend and also
implead daughter of Jamsingh Maya as necessary party in the suit.
4. Counsel for the respondents submits that nothing is on record to
show that except the bald admission on behalf of Gajraj (PW-1) that plaintiff
no.1 and plaintiff no.2 are suffering from mental illness. He further submits
that if they are suffering from mental illness, it cannot be said that they are
not in position to protect their interst or they need to be represented through
next friend. He further submits that name of Maya has not been mentioned in
the Vasiyatnama therefore she is not a necessary party. On these submissions
he urges the Court that there is no illegality in the impugned order and prays
for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
6. It is true that Gajraj (PW-1) S/o Jamsingh has stated that
respondents no.1 and 2 are suffering from mental illness, but there is nothing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3623
3 MP-2484-2025
on record to show that these persons are not in position to protect their
interest and they need representation through next friend. Therefore, mere
admission will not entitle respondents no.1 and 2 to carry on their suit on
their own. As far as impleadment of Maya is concerned, since property has
been said to be of Jamsingh, who is also father of Maya, meaning thereby
Maya is also one of the legal heirs of Jamsingh and suit has been filed for
declaration of title over the land which was earlier in the name of Jamsingh,
Maya is necessary party. There is no necessity for framing any issue with
regard to mental disability of respondents no.1 and 2.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that Maya needs
to be impleaded as plaintiff or defendant in the aforesaid suit. Hence, this
petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside to that extent
by directing the respondents to implead Maya as plaintiff or defendant in
what capacity basically it may. In case respondents/plaintiffs fails to implead
Maya as any of the parties, then issue may be raised in that regard, if learned
trial Court deems it fit.
With the aforesaid, petition is disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
