Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26903
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
MALU AMMA – Appellant
Versus
K.P.MANI – Respondent
RSA 583/2012
A deaf and dumb person cannot be classified as a 'lunatic' under the Indian Lunacy Act, validating the execution of documents by guardians without requisite court permissions.
Headnote:
Lunacy - Property Law - Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 § Definition of Lunatic; Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act; Limitation Act - The court re-evaluated the definition of lunatic and guardianship provisions, concluding that the release deed executed by the mother of the plaintiffs remained valid despite the claims of the plaintiffs regarding mental incapacity, reinforcing principles of property transfer and limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The property, originally owned by a deceased individual, was sold and transferred without required permissions needed due to the mental status of one of the co-owners. The recipients claimed the transaction was void as it did not follow legal requirements for guardianship under applicable laws.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the plaintiffs' suit barred by limitation and upheld the validity of the release deed. The appellate court reversed this, claiming improper execution regarding a minor's rights, but upon review, the judgment was found to misinterpret the definition of lunatic.
Issues: Was the appellate court correct in invoking provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act without a proper basis? Can guardians execute documents without court sanction if a person is considered mentally ill?
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that a deaf and dumb individual does not meet the criteria for being classified as a lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, invalidating the claim that the release deed required court-sanctioned permission.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.
Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.84 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode have filed this second appeal.
The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this second appeal.
The 3rd respondent in the second appeal was the 6th defendant in the suit. The properties originally belonged to one Sri Perachan. On the death of Sri Perachan, the property devolved on his sons Lakshmanan and Raghavan. Raghavan did not marry and on his death Lakshmanan became the absolute owner of the property.
Lakshmanan had five children in his wife Meenakshi, named Shyamala, Rajan, Mani, Jeevan and Anitha. Shyamala sold her 1/6th right over the plaint schedule property to one Prabhakaran Nair and one Sathi Amma as per Ext.B5 document dated 30.01.1974. Thereafter, Rajan and Meenakshi on her own behalf and representing the 2nd plaintiff and the 6th defendant, who were minors at that time and the 1st plaintiff who is stated to be mentally unsound, released their undivided share over the plaint schedule properties to Prabhakaran Nair and Sathi Amma as per Ext.B7
document dated 7.4.1974. Sri Prabhakaran Nair and Smt.Sathi Amma thereafter assigned their right over the properties to the 1st defendant and to one Ramankutty Nair, who is the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 to 5 as per Exts.B8 and B9 executed on 9.6.1976 and 20.6.1976. From 1976 onwards, the appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
30 years later, in 2006, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.84 of 2006 for declaration and partition. It is contended that the plaintiffs between themselves are entitled to 1/3rd share of the property and the 6th defendant is entitled to 1/6 share in the property. The suit is laid on the ground that no permission of the court was sought under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or under the Indian Lunacy Act, before the execution of the release deed by Meenakshi, the mother of the plaintiffs, and on account of lack of sanction, the release deed is not valid and is void.
2. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the relief sought is barred by limitation. It is contended that the 2nd plaintiff was not looking after the affairs of the 1st plaintiff who is claimed to be a lunatic. It is contended that the 2nd plaintiff became a major in the year 1983 and the 6th defendant became a major in the year 1981 and neither of them had challenged the correctness of the execution of the release deed by their mother. It was contended that the mother of the plaintiffs and the 6th defendant had executed the release deed for the benefit and welfare of the minors and the 1st plaintiff and to pay off debts, in her capacity as the 'Karanavathi' of the family. It is also contended that the property was purchased by the 1st defendant and her brother for sufficient consideration and they were in continuous possession openly and as of right.
3. Before the trial court, the 2nd plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant gave evidence as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B14 were marked. Ext.B1 is the document dated 11.11.1927 which was executed by one Veeran in favour of Perachan. Ext.B3 is the registered mortgage deed executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Lakshmanan in favour of one Lakshmi and another on 23.07.1971. The mortgage was redeemed as per Ext.B4 document dated 14.2.1974 by Meenakshi. Ext.B5 is the registered Kanam assignment deed executed by Shyamala in favour of Prabhakaran Nair and another on 30.1.1974. Ext.B6 is the registered gift deed executed in favour of Meenakshi by Devaki on 24.2.1974. It is thereafter that Ext.B7 document was executed on 7.4.1974 whereby Meenakshi and four others released their rights in favour of Prabhakaran Nair and another. It is relevant to note that since the properties involved in the release deed were executed representing minors, the mother of the plaintiffs had included her self-acquired property in the
