2016 (7) TMI 1670 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission to appoint the petitioner as the guardian ad litem of the respondent No. 3 - Application filed on the ground that he is not capable of securing his affairs and her interest does not clash with that of her husband, in any manner - amicable settlement of disputes - Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC - HELD THAT - The necessity of holding an inquiry under Rule 15 Order XXXII CPC emanates from the fundamental right of equal opportunity provided to every person under the Constitution of India, to sue or be sued and prosecute/defend his/her claim in a court of law. The cardinal principle of inquiry required to be conducted by a court as envisaged under Rule 15, is to assess as to whether the person concerned suffers from any unsoundness or mental infirmity, which makes him incapable of protecting his interest in a litigation. Thus, holding of an inquiry is a sine qua non and the court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind and/or incapable of protecting his/her interest in a litigation. The discretion is ultimately left with the court concerned to conduct an independent and impartial evaluation as it may deem fit and proper, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Only after arriving at the conclusion that a person is mentally incapable or unable to prosecute/defend the case, would the court proceed to appoint a fit person as his guardian ad litem. While doing so, the court must be mindful of the fact that such a person does not have any interest that is adverse to the applicant. Coming to the case in hand, the respondent No. 3 has presented himself before the court and during its interaction with him, posed several questions about his routine life, his family members and work and other aspects. He has stated that he had a major road accident in the year 1999, and had suffered serious brain damage as a result whereof, he has lost the ability to read and write - the respondent No. 2 is the younger sister of the respondent No. 3, and is present in Court, but he has not been able to identify her. Considering the mental faculty of the respondent No. 3 as has emerged from interacting with him, this court is of the opinion that he would not be in a position to protect his interests in the present petition as he appears to be a person of weak intellect, ineffectual and incapable of looking after his interests and affairs. Given the said circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to appoint the petitioner as the guardian ad litem of her husband, the respondent No. 3 so that his interests can be protected in the present litigation. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of a guardian ad litem for a person with mental infirmity under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC.
2. Scope and interpretation of Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC.
3. Parameters for conducting an inquiry to assess mental infirmity.
4. Evaluation of mental competence and the necessity of holding an inquiry.
5. Interaction and assessment of the respondent's mental condition.
6. Settlement agreement and its impact on the proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of a guardian ad litem for a person with mental infirmity under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC:
The petitioner sought to be appointed as the guardian ad litem of her husband, the respondent No. 3, who had suffered severe brain damage from a road accident in 1999. The petitioner argued that due to his mental infirmity, he was incapable of securing his affairs, and her interests did not clash with his.

2. Scope and interpretation of Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC:
Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC applies to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind and those found by the court to be incapable of protecting their interests due to mental infirmity. The court must conduct an inquiry to assess the individual's ability to protect their interests in litigation.

3. Parameters for conducting an inquiry to assess mental infirmity:
The court referenced several legal definitions of 'infirm' and cited multiple precedents, including *Som Nath v. Tipanna Ram Chandra*, *Kasturibai v. Anguri Chaudhary*, and *Jai Prakash Goel v. State*, which emphasize the court's duty to conduct an inquiry when a party is alleged to be mentally infirm. The inquiry should include questioning the individual and, if necessary, obtaining medical evaluations.

4. Evaluation of mental competence and the necessity of holding an inquiry:
The court underscored the necessity of an inquiry under Rule 15 Order XXXII CPC to uphold the fundamental right of equal opportunity in litigation. The inquiry aims to determine if the person suffers from unsoundness or mental infirmity, rendering them incapable of protecting their interests.

5. Interaction and assessment of the respondent's mental condition:
The court interacted with respondent No. 3, who demonstrated a vacillating state of mind, inability to read and write, and difficulty recalling personal details. Despite understanding questions, his responses were disjointed and repetitive, indicating weak intellect and incapacity to protect his interests.

6. Settlement agreement and its impact on the proceedings:
Respondent No. 2, the sister of respondent No. 3, confirmed a settlement agreement dated 22.05.2015, resolving disputes over their deceased parents' estates. She did not oppose the petitioner's application for guardianship.

Conclusion:
Given the respondent No. 3's mental condition, the court deemed it appropriate to appoint the petitioner as his guardian ad litem to protect his interests in the litigation. The application was allowed and disposed of accordingly.