Point of Law : Issuance of a demand notice and his presence in the Sub-Registrar office on the expiry of the date of the contract itself will not relieve him from the liability to prove the requirement under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

A suit for specific performance of contract for sale was dismissed by the trial court on the sole ground that the defendant was mentally incapacitated at the time when the contract for sale was executed. The plaintiff came up in appeal against the said judgment and decree.

2. It is based on Exts.B1 to B4 series and the oral evidence of DW2 and DW3, the trial court found that the defendant was incapacitated due to unsoundness of mind at the time of alleged execution of Ext.A1 contract for sale, consequently, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the following questions came up for consideration : (1) What actually amounts to an unsound mind for the purpose of contracting (2) Does it mean complete mental impairment or legal insanity akin to that as embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (3) What would be the requirement pertaining to civil matters and (4) What is the difference in the legal position applicable to civil and criminal matters ?

3. The expression “unsoundness of mind” as incorporated under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the Contract Act is having different connotations. Its application and requirement are totally different. In order to bring out a case of insanity under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, there should be a total deprivation of mental ability to understand the consequences of his act at the time of commission of offence. The expression unsoundness of mind as embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code must be understood as of such a nature depriving the person from knowing the consequences of his act. Further, drunkenness/intoxication either by the use of alcohol or drugs cannot be brought under the purview of “unsoundness of mind” for the purpose of evading criminal liability based on the principle embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. The requirement under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is the total impairment of mental capacity to know the nature of his act or that he is doing something wrong or contrary to law. To have the application of Section 84 or to claim its benefit, the person, who claims it, should prove not only “unsoundness of mind”, but also “the complete deprivation of knowing the consequences of his act” by reason of unsoundness of mind. A self induced mental impairment or unsoundness of mind due to intoxication cannot be brought under the purview of Section 84 IPC or the expression unsoundness of mind incorporated therein. Necessarily, the said expression should be understood not only based on the exception carved out under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, but also with the mandate under Sections 85 and 86 of IPC. In other words, a complete deprivation of knowing the consequences of his act due to some other reason such as self intoxication or intoxication by other means, though amounts to deprivation of knowing the consequence of his act, cannot be brought under the purview of Section 84 of the IPC. But a case of self induced mental incapacity is relevant in civil matters in the adjudication of validity of a contract, deed or actions, if any, done and hence, the expression “unsound mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act did not demand complete deprivation of mental ability or legal insanity. There is substantial change in the legal position as to what actually amounts to the expression “unsound mind” for the purpose of contracting, from that of the requirement under Section 84 of IPC. What governs the field pertaining to civil matters is the impairment of mental capacity or ability to form a rational judgment on the matters affecting his interest and as such, a mental aberration, if it is capable of affecting the ability to form a rational judgment on the matters affecting his interest is relevant under Section 12 of the Contract Act and would operate against the document and its validity. In short, it is not at all necessary to prove complete impairment or mental disability or insanity so as to bring the matter withi