Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
Jayachandran, Thundiyil Kizhakkathil, Valathunkalcheri, Iravipuram Village, Kollam District – Appellant
Versus
R. Vijayaleskhmi Amma, W/o. G. Harikrishnan – Respondent
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 1st plaintiff is the wife of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of the 2nd 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 2nd plaintiff which he obtained as per Ext.A3 partition deed No.1373/1997. As per the plaint averments, the 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st plaintiff on several occasions. Because of his mental condition, he could not even show l
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.
The presumption of validity attached to registered documents is rebuttable, and must yield to evidence of mental incapacity at execution.
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed unless strong evidence of fraud or intoxication is presented, and claims of limitation must be substantiated.
An unregistered sale deed is invalid for specific performance claims, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the validity of the transaction.
A partition suit must challenge any obstructive settlement deeds, and the absence of specific pleadings regarding their validity can undermine the plaintiffs' claims.
Registered sale deeds hold presumptive validity and must be proven void by substantial evidence, placing the burden on the party claiming undue influence or lack of consideration.
A mere declaration that a sale deed is null and void is ineffectual; a plaintiff must seek to set aside the deed, which must be substantiated by evidence to oppose its presumptive validity.
The court can conduct an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of a party to a suit before or during the pendency of the suit, as per Order 32, Rule 15 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
