Educated Deaf Woman’s Bid To Have Husband Act As Next Friend In Property Suit Fails; Chhattisgarh HC Finds No Proof She Couldn’t Protect Her Interests

Respondents 1 and 2 brought a civil suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell land, cancellation of a subsequent sale deed, and permanent injunction.

The petitioner, the defendant in that suit, applied under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking appointment of her husband as next friend, asserting that her deafness and inability to speak left her unable to present her case effectively.

The trial court rejected the application.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the court should have conducted an inquiry into her ability to protect her interests.

The record included medical material relating to her hearing and speech impairment, as well as evidence of her education and involvement in other transactions.

Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC applies the rules concerning minors to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind and to persons whom the court finds, upon inquiry, incapable by reason of mental infirmity of protecting their interests in litigation; appointment of a next friend therefore requires satisfaction of the statutory conditions, and a physical disability alone does not establish incapacity.

The court relied on Kasturi Bai v. Anguri Chaudhary, which it cited for the principle that an appropriate order may be made where inquiry establishes incapacity to protect one’s interests due to mental infirmity.

Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as reproduced in the judgment, permits a witness unable to speak to give evidence by writing or signs and provides for interpreter or special-educator assistance where necessary.

The court accepted that the petitioner had a hearing and speech impairment but found no material suggesting that she suffered from unsoundness of mind or a mental infirmity preventing her from protecting her interests.

Her education and participation in transactions and proceedings were relevant circumstances; the court also noted that she could communicate in writing or by signs, use an interpreter if needed, and receive assistance from counsel and her husband.

It held that the physical impairment did not, by itself, satisfy Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC or justify appointing her husband as next friend.

Although the provision contemplates an inquiry, the court considered that the material before it disclosed no basis for finding the required incapacity and saw no need for a further inquiry in the circumstances.

Finding no error in the trial court’s rejection of the application, it dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.