The main legal point established in the judgment is that unsoundness of mind may render a contract invalid, and the authority of de facto managers in Hindu law to alienate property in case of necessity.

Pollock, J—This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of survey No. 20 in mauza Sonwal in the Basim taluq. This field at one time formed part of the joint family property of Mahipati and his cousins. In 1937 his cousins brought a suit for partition of the joint family property, civil Suit No. 2A of 1937. In that suit Mahipati was described as insane and his wife Mt. Kauti acted as his guardian. By consent of the parties and with the sanction of the Court a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 24th March 1938. Mahipati was declared entitled to eight annas share in the property and it was agreed that the plaintiffs would not challenge the validity of transactions effected on his behalf by his wife Mt. Kauti, who was defendant 2 in the case, and that the property covered by such transactions would be allotted to the share of Mahipati. It was also agreed that all transactions done by Mahipati, who was described in the decree as an idiot, without the consent of the plaintiffs or Mt. Kauti, should be regarded as not binding. On 27th July 1937, Mahipati's wives, Mt. Kauti and Mt. Bayani, purporting to act as his guardians, had sold the field in suit to the plaintiff for Rs. 300. Previously, on 26th November 1936, Mahipati had gifted this field to Mt. Salunki, the minor daughter of his sister Mt. Tulsi, and Tulsi acting as guardian for Salunki sold the field to the defendant on 17th January 1938.

2. The pleadings in this case were badly drafted. The gist of the plaint was that the field in suit belonged to Mahipati who was buddhimand translated as dull of understanding, that his wives were his guardians, and that on 27th July 1937, his wives acting as his guardians sold the field in suit to the plaintiff. There was no indication how his wives derived authority to act on his behalf, and there was no pleading that the sale was for legal necessity. The defendant in his written statement denied that Mahipati was dull of understanding or that any guardian had been appointed for him; he also denied, what had not been alleged, that there was legal necessity for the sale; and he went on to plead that Mahipati had gifted the field to Salunki on. 26th November 1936, and that the defendant had acquired title from Salunki on 17th January 1938. The only point on which the plaintiff was entitled to reply was on the last point. He was however allowed to put in a written rejoinder which considerably elaborated his case; he should of course have been required to amend the plaint if he wished to do that. In his rejoinder the plaintiff alleged that Mahipati was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs or effecting any con-tracts, that he was always represented by his wife Kauti in his transactions, that the consideration of Rs. 300 for the sale was required for cultivation and family expenses, and that it was not open to the defendant to challenge the validity of the sale on the ground of legal necessity, apparently, because it had been agreed in the preliminary decree in the suit of 1937 that these transactions should not be challenged. The plaintiff also contended that the alleged deed of gift was not valid because it was not open to a coparcener of a Hindu joint family to gift away his undivided interest. On these pleadings the issues, as might be expected, were unhappily framed but there was no reason why they should infringe the rule that they should be self-contained. The only issue framed on the main question in dispute, Mahipati's soundness or unsoundness of mind, was: ''Were the wives of Mahipati, guardian of his person and, property for the reasons alleged by the plaintiff?''

3. The trial Court held that Mahipati was not a lunatic but an idiot, apparently under the impression that idiocy is a less advanced, form of unsoundness of mind than lunacy; it is in fact the most extreme form of mental (unsoundness. In 1981 there had been an application by Mahipati's step-mother Mt. Changuni under Sect