Skip to content


In Re: K. Narasimha Bhattachariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad657; (1938)2MLJ810
AppellantIn Re: K. Narasimha Bhattachariar
Excerpt:
- .....contained in rules 1 to 14 so far as they are applicable shall extend to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind and to persons who though not so adjudged are found by the court on enquiry by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity to be incapable of protecting their interests when suing or being sued. if the person concerned is incapable of protecting his interests as has been found in this case then to say that the next friend is not entitled to institute a suit would result in completely negativing any relief to the plaintiff with respect to actions taken by him which are detrimental to his interests. it is the case of the next friend here that the power-of-attorney was given to the defendant on unsubstantial grounds that it should be revoked in the interests of the.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.

1. The main question in this appeal is whether the suit has been properly instituted on behalf of the plaintiff Venkatanarasimha Bhattachari by his next friend, his wife. Her case as the next friend is that her husband is mentally deficient, is not able to look after his affairs and is incapable of protecting his interests. The relief asked for is the revocation of the power-of-attorney granted by him to the defendant. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the next friend has no right to institute the suit, and that it should be dismissed. It was dismissed by the trial Judge on that ground, but this decision was set aside by Venkataramana Rao, J., who came to the conclusion on the evidence that the plaintiff was incapable of protecting his interests when suing or being sued.

2. There is ample evidence on record in support of the learned Judge's conclusion. On a previous occasion this Court treated the plaintiff as one under disability within the meaning of Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Ex. G). That rule says that the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 so far as they are applicable shall extend to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind and to persons who though not so adjudged are found by the Court on enquiry by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity to be incapable of protecting their interests when suing or being sued. If the person concerned is incapable of protecting his interests as has been found in this case then to say that the next friend is not entitled to institute a suit would result in completely negativing any relief to the plaintiff with respect to actions taken by him which are detrimental to his interests. It is the case of the next friend here that the power-of-attorney was given to the defendant on unsubstantial grounds that it should be revoked in the interests of the plaintiff himself. We cannot accept the argument that in such circumstances the Court should deny relief to the next friend by saying that' she has no right to institute the suit. We think that the decision of the learned Judge is right and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

3. The stay petition is also dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //