The burden of proving sanity lies on the party alleging it, who must show sanity and competence at the period when the act was done and to which the lucid interval refers.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' appeal out of a suit brought for a declaration that a certain kobala which had been executed by one Bir Bahadur Singh 'alias' Kalika Singh Chhetri was a void one as the alleged vendor was a person of unsound mind and did not fully comprehend the effects of the acts done by him. The suit had a chequered career.

( 2 ) THE mother of the alleged lunatic had filed a suit making herself and her son plaintiffs. She had applied for leave to sue as a pauper. She was allowed to do so. No formal leave was at the initial stage taken for the proper representation of the alleged lunatic. Such defects were cured when the suit came up for hearing before the final stage. The suit had been dismissed at one stage as no proper steps were taken. An application for rehearing was subsequently filed and the suit was revived. This is how the suit had been pending from the end of 1947 till the end of 1949 when the trial came to an end in the Lower Court. The declaration, as prayed for, has been made. The defendants, one of whom was the transferee under the conveyance, have both appealed.

( 3 ) THE principal questions for consideration in this case are whether Kalika was a person of unsound mind and on whom would the onus lie in the facts of the present case, and what was the mental condition of Kalika at the relevant time.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs' case was that Sardar Bahadur Chhetri, father of Kalika, died in September, 1944, leaving the widow Kumkuma Chhetrini and a son Kalika. He had other issues also, but it is not necessary to advert to the same for the purpose of the decision in this case. According to the mother Kumkuma, her son Kalika was of Insane mind for several years before the death of her husband and had on certain occasions been sent to the Asylum at Darjeeling and also to Ranchi as the mother had difficulties in managing him. It was further alleged that on 21-8-1945, Kalika purported to have executed a sale deed in favour of Lachmi Devi wife of Bahadur Singh Chhettri (both of whom have been impleaded as defendants) of the property which belonged to the father of Kalika. It is alleged that Kalika was pf unsound mind at the time when the transaction had taken place. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that Kalika was a man of perfectly sound mind and was healthy and no fraud had been perpetrated as alleged. The title had been properly conveyed in favour of the defendants. Other questions also had been raised which will be referred to at the proper place after we consider the question as to the procedure which should be followed in a case of this description.

( 5 ) WHEN a transaction is attempted to be impeached on the ground that the person who has executed the document was a man of unsound mind, the initial onus undoubtedly lies on the person who comes up with the case that the executant was a person of unsound mind. Normally, the presumption is of sanity. In the present case, therefore, the initial onus is on the plaintiffs to show that Kalika was a man of unsound mind. If, however, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the person whose mental condition and capacity are in doubt had been adjudged under the Lunacy Act to have been a lunatic, the burden shifts to the person who alleges his sanity. Lord Langdale in 'snook v. Watts', (1848) 11 Beav 105 (A) pointed out that though the finding of a person being insane did not bind third parties, yet it cast the burden of proving the person's sanity on the party alleging it. It was pointed out that when a man was found to have been insane at a particular period, the mere proof of one stray act apparently in the manner of a man of sound mind would not, if unaccompanied by other proofs, be sufficient to demonstrate that the person had been acting as a normal man during a lucid interval.

( 6 ) REFERENCE may also be made to the observations of Thurlow, L. C. in the 'attorney General v. Parnther', (1792) 3 Bro CC 441 (B ). The Lord Chancellor