A presumption of validity applies to registered documents, requiring compelling evidence to overturn this assumption regarding mental capacity at the time of execution.

JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.133/2010 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thalassery which arouse out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.265/2006 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court)

2. The suit was one for declaration and consequential injunction originally filed by the plaintiff through the next friend alleging that the plaintiff is mentally infirm. The plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiff as per partition deed No.1050/1980. It is alleged that plaintiff is infirm due to senility and connected ailments and hence he is represented by his son, the next friend. Defendants 2 and 3 are also his children. Plaintiff had executed a registered Will No.72/99 of S.R.O, Mattannur in favour of his next friend bequeathing half of the plaint schedule property in favour of the next friend. Pending the proceedings, plaintiff died and the next friend has been impleaded as the supplemental second plaintiff and it is alleged that the possession of the portion of property so bequeathed was entrusted with the supplemental second plaintiff. Before one year of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff met with an accident and sustained serious injuries and thereafter he was unable to walk and was confined to his house. All the expenses for the treatment was met by the supplemental plaintiff. So, for the last six months, the plaintiff was mentally and physically infirm and hence he is incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and forming a rational judgment as to their impact upon him. The plaintiff had been under the custody and control of second and third defendants. The supplemental plaintiff went abroad in search of job. While so, he got information from his wife that the second and third defendants manipulated some documents with respect to the plaint schedule property and it was learnt that second and third defendants taking advantage of the mental infirmity of the plaintiff got executed document No.1862/06 of S.R.O Mattannur in favour of the first defendant. Then, the supplemental plaintiff returned from abroad and plaintiff was ignorant of such transaction. The first defendant is a close friend of the second defendant and the plaint schedule property is situated on the side of T.C. Road and property will fetch a value of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per cent and would have fetched an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in total but it has been shown as sold for a meager amount of Rs.64,000/-. The plaintiff has no need to sell the property. According to the supplemental plaintiff, plaintiff has not executed the said document and he was incapable of protecting his interest and hence the document No.1862/2006 of S.R.O Mattannur is invalid and unlawful and is not binding on the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property.

Hence suit has been filed by the plaintiff through the next friend.

3. Pending the proceedings plaintiff died and the remaining legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 5 to 8 and defendants 2 and 3 were also recorded as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 filed written statement.

6^th defendant remained ex parte. The entire allegation regarding the mental infirmity of the plaintiff is stoutly denied. The plaintiff did not suffer any senility and ailments. The supplemental plaintiff is not entitled to represent the plaintiff and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. Memory of the plaintiff never faded away and he was sufficiently intelligent and logical and his speech was coherent. Document No.1826/2006 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1^st defendant which is a valid assignment. The consideration was fixed by negotiation and it was the plaintiff who instructed the scribe to prepare and register the document. It is denied that the consideration of Rs.64,000/- fixed to the property is meager. Fi