Madras High Court

Saranya vs Santharam on 12 July, 2021

                                                                               C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

                                                  DATED:12.07.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                C.R.P.No.243 of 2021
                                                        and
                                               C.M.P.No.2327 of 2021

                     Saranya                                           ...Petitioner

                                                        Vs
                     1.Santharam,
                       Unsound mind person,
                       Represented by his Son
                       Sathishbabu
                     2.R.Murali
                     3.Minor.R.Haripriya
                     4.Minor R.Rohid
                     5.R.Ramajayam
                     6.Tirupathi
                     7.Joint Sub Registrar-2
                       Sub Registrar Office,
                       Tiruvannamalai District.
                     8.Sub Registrar,
                       Sub Registrar Office,
                       Kannamangalam Town,
                       Arani Taluk,
                       Tiruvannamalai District.                        ...Respondents

                     (Respondents 3 and 4 are represented
                     by their father and natural
                     Guardian R.Ramajayam)


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1
                                                                                C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of
                     India, to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.35 of 2019
                     in O.P.No.Nill of 2019 dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal
                     District Court, Tiruvannamalai.

                                           For Petitioner    : Mr.S.Kumara Devan

                                                       ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order

passed by the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, by which, the

learned judge has allowed the I.A., filed by the first respondent herein for

declaring the first respondent herein as pauper and pass a judgment and

decree to cancel the document lying on the file of the seventh respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, viz,

Mr.Sathishbabu representing Mr.Santharam, is her own brother. On

22.04.2018, their father met with an accident and sustained head injury.

He was admitted in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and after

treatment, he was discharged from the hospital on 04.05.2018. Even after

discharge, their father took treatment from different hospitals for various

ailments. According to the petitioner, her father was fully conscious at all

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

times.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner, her father by way of gift

deed, executed a document gifting the properties mentioned in the

schedule, in the name of the petitioner and such properties are purchased

by her father out of his own funds. Since her father was fully conscious

at the time of executing the documents, the owner of the property/her

father had every right to disburse them as he desired. While so, the first

respondent-his brother has filed a pauper O.P. before the learned District

Judge, Thiruvannamalai, seeking for cancellation of document,

Declaratory relief. In the meanwhile, the first respondent, viz, Sathish

Babu filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.35 of 2019 to permit

him to conduct the above suit, representing his father. The trial Judge, on

appreciation of the materials placed before him, allowed the said petition.

Challenging the said order, the present civil revision petition has been

filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contented that

the order of the trial Court suppressed from various incrimination. The

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

first respondent has not produced any documents to show that his father

was suffering from any kind of mental ailment or he had lost his

reasoning. In the absence of any such documents, the trial Court was in

great error in allowing the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

documents filed in support of the revision petition.

6. Though the petitioner has been continuously taking stand that

her father was having sound mind and he did not suffer from any mental

ailment, she has failed to produce any certificate obtained from the

competent doctor to the effect that the father of the petitioner was in a

condition to understand and analyze things on his own. The petitioner

ought to have produced the mental fitness certificate relating to her

father. On the other hand, the stand of the first respondent is that their

father was mentally unstable things due to the injury sustained at the time

of accident and he has lost his ability to do understand and act on his

own.

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

7. According to the first respondent, taking advantage of the

inability of their father to understand what is happening around him and

act accordingly, the petitioner only to have credit over the documents as

their father has gifted the properties the petitioner seeks to dismiss the

order passed by the Court below. Further, the first respondent without

knowing the consequences, has signed those documents. Also according

to the first respondent, he is not in a position to conduct trial by paying

the Court fees and therefore, he has filed a pauper original petition.

8. On a perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that

the petitioner has filed the medical records pertaining to her father in the

typed set of papers, filed along with the O.P. The discharge summaries

dated 15.06.2018, 19.12.2018 and 17.12.2018 speaks volumes with

regard to the treatment given to her father and also his mental condition.

Doctors have categorically observed that the person (her father) had

suffered from traumatic brain injuries.

9. Moreover, it is worthwhile to mention the relevant portion in the

following documents to substantiate the case of the respondent.

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

(i) Discharge Summary of the petitioner's father dated 25.05.2018

issued by the Fortis Malar Hospital, wherein it is stated that

patient brough to ER with alleged history of RTA (2 wheeler vs car) on 22.04.2018 at 7 am in Thiruvannamalai. Patient was admitted, evaluated, treated in CMC Vellore and diagnosed as severe hed injury. CT brain taken on 22.04.2018 showing B/L temporal contusion (left>right), left parietal/right frontal contusion, diffuse SAH, diffuse cerebral edema, fracture of left temporal bone/middle cranial fossa with air pockets. GCS at admission was noted as E2 V1 M5, pupils-B/1 2 mm reacting to light with left hemiparesis. During hospital stay had CSF otorrhea left ear, had right pneumothorax while on NIV, ICD done on 25.04.2015. The patient was also diagnosed to have chronic anemia, 2 units of PRBC transfused, patient was intubated in view of low GCS, tracheostomy done on 02.05.2018. The patient also developed fever sputum C/s-staph. Aureus, Urine C/s-Enterococcus. Lavage culture showed no growth. Dr,Radhi Malar (ophthalmologist) opinion obtained found to

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

have left corneal and conjunctival epithelial defect & scarring and advice medications followed. Dr.Vidhya (infectious disease) opinion obtained to control infection with increased total counts and advice followed. Antibiotics escalated to inj Meropenem and Inj Vancomycin (meningitic dose) in view of CSF ottorhea & neck stiffness. Lumber puncture was planned by deferred in view of recent head injury & patient showing clinical improvement. Dr.Senthil (Cardiothoracic surgeon) opinion obtained and right intercostal drainage removed since lung expansion was adequate Dr.Srivatsa (Diabetologist) opinion obtained in view of increased sugar levels and advice followed. Dr.Jinadas opinion (General Physician) obtained in view of anemia with secondary thrombocytosis and Ferrinject given, HB values improved to 10.9. During hospital stay the patient had brownish secretion through Ryles tube & features of paralytic ileus and Dr Anand (Gastrosurgeon) opinion obtained and advice followed. CT BRAIN taken on 21.05.2018 showed resolving contusion in the left temporo parietal region, bilateral fronto temporo-

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

parietal hygroma (R>L) undisplaced fracture left temporo parietal bone, left zygomatic arch, pertous temporal and squamous temporal bones. CT CHEST done showed subpleural and confluent parenchymal density, with scar tissue and adjacent paraseptal emphysema are seen in the upper lobe of right lung and lower lobes of both lungs, S/o inflammatory/infective condition. Patient was weaned off to Shiley's double lumen fenestrated tracheostomy tube and later to Fuller's bivalved metal tracheostomy tube. Patient had thich tracheostomy secretions and on trial attempted oral feeds; patient was refusing to take oral feeds; hence decided to continue with tracheostomy tube at present and delayed deannulation planned. The patient was treated with antibiotics and other neuroprotective agents (Tab.B.Crip 2.5 mg, T. Ideben 45 mg, T.

                                   Cognistar,          T.Somazina               plus)      oral
                                   hypoglycemics,            nebulisation         and     other

supportive measures. The patient improved symptomatically, obeying simple commands, ambulated, fever subsided, tolerating oral feeds, HB improved, counts decreased, platelets

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

decreased, hence, discharged with the following advice. Patient was advised MRI brain and left brachial plexus once general condition improves and follow up.

(ii) Discharge Summary of the petitioner's father dated 26.05.2018

issued by the Fortis Malar Hospital, wherein it is stated that;

Diagnosis: Severe head injury and sequelae acute tracheo bronchitis left corneal ulceration suspected left brachial plexus injury Co Morbidities: Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus systemic hypertension.

Course in Hospital: The patient was admitted with above mentioned history. Patient is being treated and observed in out hospital for one day. Patient is tolerating oral feeds, ambulated obeying simple commands, hence discharged with the following advice.

(iii) Discharge Summary of the petitioner's father dated 13.06.2018

issued by the Fortis Malar Hospital, wherein it is stated that;

61 years old male who is a known case of Traumatic Brain injury & sequalae (RTA-

22.04.2018) Admitted on 04.05.2018 and discharged on 25.05.2018. Now admitted for tracheotomy decannulation. Taking oral feeds,

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

but inadequate continuing on RT feeds. History of low grade fever-today, no history of breathlessness, Talks with speaking valve.

(iv) Discharge Summary of the petitioner's father dated 17.12.2018

issued by the Fortis Malar Hospital, wherein it is stated that;

Past history; Known case of Traumatic brain injury (May 2018), b/1 temporal contusion/left parietal contusion/diffuse axonal injury. Known case of DM/HTN.

Course in the Hospital; Patient came to ER with above mentioned complaints. He was sedated and paralysed and then shifted to NICU. CT brain done showed b/1 temporal gliosis+, right normal parietal very thin resolving chronic subdural haematoma, ventricles size normal, atrophic brain parenchyma. Besides ECHO done showed mild LVH, Normal LV size and systolic function, EF-

60%, Grade I LV diastolic dysfunction, trivial MR, trivial TR, aortic sclerosis. Neurologist opinion was sought and he advised Inj.Levipil, Inj. Encorate, Tab.Frisium and Inj.Clexane and bedside EEG. EEG showed diffuse slow wave dysfunction in theta and delta region

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

(encephalopathy pattern +). Physician opinion was sought in view of sepsis and glycemic control ad his advice followed. Pan culture sent and patient treated with Inj.Piptaz. patient slowly improved, weaned off from ventilation and extubated on 11.12.2018. Urine C/S showed Klebsiella species it was sensitive to Pipracillin hence Inj.Piptaz was continues. Blood and BAL culture showed on growth. On 12.12.2018 patient shifted to ward and continued on antibiotics and other supportive measures. Patient mobilized, condition improved, on further seizures/fever. Total count normalized. Patient Tolerating oral feeds but inadequate in take hence continued on RT feeds. On 17.12.2018 Urinary catheter removed. patient self voided and discharged.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and

taking note of the above said documents, this petitioner has miserably

failed to substantiate her case that her father was in sound state of mind

at the time of executing the sale deed before the Sub Registrar Office. On

the other hand, the first respondent had produced document proofs to

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

C.R.P.No.243 of 2021

prove the mental condition of their father that he suffered Traumatic

brain injury and he is taking treatment from various hospital and still not

recovered.

11. This Court is of the view that there are wealthy documents to

support the case produced by the first respondent. This Court does not