A person suffering from intermittent mental illness can execute valid contracts during lucid intervals, and a declaration of title without a claim for possession is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The defendant in OS 250/2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara, is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

2. The 1^st plaintiff is the wife of the 2^nd plaintiff. The 1^st plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of the 2^nd plaintiff as his next friend on the ground that he is of unsound mind. The suit is for declaration and consequential injunction. The plaint schedule properties belong to the 2^nd plaintiff which he obtained as per Ext.A3 partition deed No.1373/1997. As per the plaint averments, the 2^nd plaintiff is suffering from unsoundness of mind since 15.9.1992. He was treated in different hospitals such as Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Medical College hospital, Alappuzha, Nakkada hospital, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla and St.Gregorious hospital, Parumala. The 2^nd plaintiff's parents died in the year 1992 and 1994 respectively and their death aggravated his mental condition. Thereafter his condition became worse and he became violent towards the 1^st plaintiff on several occasions. Because of his mental condition, he could not even show love and affection towards his wife and children and as a result of which they left the 2^nd plaintiff and started residing at her paternal home. Taking advantage of the illness of the 2^nd plaintiff and the absence of the 1^st plaintiff along with him, the defendant colluded with others and fraudulently created Ext.A5(B7) sale deed No.1146/1999 of Keerikkad Sub Registry in respect of plaint B scheduled property. The property situated by the side of Harippad – Kayamkulam road. The total consideration for the entire 35 cents of plaint schedule property shown in the document was Rs.35,000/-. Though the said property is situated within the limits of Cheppad Sub Registrar office, the document was registered at Keerikkad Sub Registrar's office (SRO). Though 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Keerikkad SRO was shown as security property, the said SRO had no jurisdiction to execute the above sale deed. The Sub Registrar, Keerikkad, has not conducted proper enquiry before permitting registration of the sale deed. The 1^st plaintiff filed a suit as OS.456/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam for maintenance for herself and children and obtained an order of attachment of the plaint A scheduled property with the intention to secure the said property from alienation. Alleging that the defendant is taking hasty steps to alienate the 'B' schedule property, she preferred the present suit seeking declaration that Ext.A5 sale deed No.1146/1999 of Keerikkad Sub Registry executed by the 2^nd plaintiff in favour of the defendant is null and void and also for a consequential injunction against the defendant.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contending that the 2^nd plaintiff was not suffering from any mental illness and also that he had executed the sale deed after receiving valid consideration. It was also contended that, in the family partition the 2^nd plaintiff joined as a party and further contended that the 1^st plaintiff herself filed a suit against the 2^nd plaintiff in his personal capacity. Therefore, according to the defendant, there is no