2005 Supreme(SC) 617

2005(3) Supreme 381
Supreme Court of India
(From Gauhati High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Sona Bala Bora and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Jytirindra Bhatacharjee —Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2519-2520 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10084-85 of 2004)
Decided on 11-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Biswanath Aggarwal and Rajiv Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Dr. Devi Prasad Pal, Ms. Susmita Lal, Ashesh Lal, K.K. Tiwary and Ms. Malbika Sarkar, Advocates.

Important point
A contract of sale like any other contract would be vitiated if the consent of either party is given by a person of unsound mind.

Headnote:(i) Contract Act, 1872—Sections 11 and 12—Contract of sale—Consent given by a person of unsound mind—Respondent claimed to have purchased three bungalows and the land from husband of first appellant ‘B’ for a consideration of Rs. 69,000/-—Appellant and her children filed a suit against respondent claiming a declaration that ‘B’, original owner did not have the absolute right to transfer the property—‘B’ had sold the entire property to respondent in breach of a compromise between ‘B’ and appellants—Appellants’ case that ‘B’ was mentally imbalanced when the impugned sale deed was executed—District Judge dismissed respondents claim holding that ‘B’ was mentally imbalanced and sale and mutation of the property was without the knowledge of appellants—It was held that ‘B’ was not the sole owner of the property and he could not transfer the entire land to respondent—Decision of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court is ­restored—Amount of Rs. 69,000/- is directed to be paid by appellants to ­respondent.

       Held : It was the admitted case that Bhogirath was at least reputed to be insane which was why the respondent thought it necessary to have him medically examined before he purchased the property. It is in this background that the First Appellate Court had examined the facts and had held that respondent should have produced the doctor who certified that Bhogirath was mentally normal. It cannot be disputed that a contract of sale like any other contract would be vitiated if the consent of either party is given by a ­person of unsound mind as provided in Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872. Under Section 12 of that Act, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making the contract, if at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of ­forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. A person of unsound mind is thus not necessarily a lunatic. It is sufficient if the person is incapable of judging the consequences of his acts. (Paras 18 and 19)

       It must be remembered that in a civil matter the issues have to be decided on a balance of probabilities. The question of the capacity of Bhogirath to execute the conveyance did not have to be established only by medical evidence. The unsoundness of the mind may be established by proving such conduct as was not only not in keeping with the concerned person’s character but such that it could not be explained on any reasonable basis. (Para 20)

       The act of dispossessing his family from property and putting his family on the streets must be seen as intrinsically that of an unsound mind. Interestingly the respondent, a stranger to the family, said in evidence that if he could not get the possession of the land he was willing to take back the money that he had paid and that he did not desire the appellants “to go to the street after vacating the house”. The reaction of the respondent when compared with the conduct of Bhogirath would highlight the extent of the irrationality and abnormality of Bhogirath’s conduct. The general reputation of Bhogirath as suffering from mental disorder was acknowledged by the respondent himself and the Appellate Court erred in not giving appropriate weight to this admission of the respondent. (Para 21)

       No doubt the burden to prove or establish at least on a balance of probability that Bhogirath’s action in executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent was the outcome of an unsound mind was on the appellants. But unrebutted evidence of an unnatural and inexplicable animosity to his wife and children as well as of an unnatural and inexplicable fixation on selling of all his properties probabilses that the sale was effected by when Bhogirath was incapable of rational behaviour. This was sufficient to discharge the appellants’ burden. The onus then shifted to the respondent to adduce evidence either to show that the ostensibly irrational conduct of Bhogirath had a rational explanation or that the conveyance was executed by Bhogirath in a lucid interval. The respondent had, if his statement is to be accepted, a certificate of a Doctor who had medically examined Bhogirath just before the conveyance was executed. The respondent did not seek to call the Doctor or prove the certificate. We would therefore hold that the Division Bench erred in reversing the decision of the lower Courts on this issue (Paras 24 and 25)

       (ii) Words and Phrases—­Insanity—A person of unsound mind is not necessarily a lunatic, it is sufficient if the person is incapable of judging the consequences of his acts.