IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 10146 of 2004(G) -------------------------- OS.265/1994 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.NAMBI, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 70 YEARS,(MENTALLY INFIRM), THROUGH GUARDIAN V.KALLIYANI. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.P.VALSALA, D/O.KUNHIKELU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 2. K.P.VASANTHA, D/O.KUNHIKELYU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 3. K.P.VANAJA, D/O.KUNHIKELU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 4. PRAKASHAN, S/O.KUNHIKELU, GOLDSMITH, RESIDING AT PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 5. SUDHA, D/O.KUNHIKELU, PANIYANNOR AMSOM DESOM. 6. SURESH, S/O.KUNHIKELU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 7. BINDU D/O.KUNHIKELU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM. 8. LAKSHMI, D/O.KUNHIKELU, PANNIYANNUR AMSOM DSOM. 9. K.P.KANNAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY, PERINGATHUR AMSOM DESOM. (DIED) WPC.10146/2004 10. K.P.BALAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY, GOLDSMITH, PERINGATHUR ASMOM AND DESOM. 11. K.P.DAMODARAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY, PERINGATHUR AMSOM DESOM. 12. K.P.BHASAKARAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, PERINGATHUR AMSOM DESOM. 13. K.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY, PERINGATHUR AMSOM DESOM. 14. K.P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY, PERINGATHUR AMSOM DESOM. R9 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 11.2.2010 IN I.A.NO.11928/2006 ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD FOR R10 TO R14 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.10146/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:COPY OF THE PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.2.2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 21.7.2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 9 TO 14 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 21.7.2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.10.2003 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2004 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2004 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10146 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thalassery declining to accept the settlement canvassed by the guardian of the plaintiff, who is stated to be a mentally ill person, with some of the defendants. In the preliminary decree passed, share of the plaintiff was determined. In the final decree a commissioner after conducting inspection, filed a report specifying allotment and also the value of the property. Guardian of the plaintiff thereupon moved an application seeking permission to collect the value of the property by allotting that plot to respondents 9 to 14. That was resisted by some other defendants. The court below, after hearing the parties, declined the permission sought for vide Ext.P2 order. Review petitions were filed by the Guardian and also respondents 9 to 14/defendants 2 to 7. Both the petitions, after hearing the parties, were dismissed WPC.10146/04 2 by separate orders by the learned Single Judge holding that there is no error apparent in Ext.P2 order for invoking the review jurisdiction. Propriety and correctness of those orders (Exts.P6 and P7) are challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing Exts.P6 and P7 orders with reference to Ext.P2 order and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find a scrutiny as to the correctness of the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is not called for in the present case. The plaintiff in the case is shown to be a mentally ill person as represented by a guardian. A settlement, whatever be the nature of it in respect of that mentally ill person can be accepted only if the court is satisfied as to the legality and validity of that settlement. Further more, in respect of transfer of a property of a mentally ill person, the provisions of the Mental Health Act may also be applicable. If so, only the competent authority thereunder can examine such question. I need not look into the correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the learned Sub Judge. However, I make it clear WPC.10146/04 3 that it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in respect of the property of the plaintiff, a mentally ill person, safeguarding his interest. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp