The presumption of validity attached to registered documents is rebuttable, and must yield to evidence of mental incapacity at execution.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2011 in A.S. No.57 of 2003 on the files of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff (a person with an unsound mind being represented by the next friend and guardian i.e., his wife) in O.S. No.345 of 1995, on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Neyyattinkara, which was instituted for cancellation of a sale deed stated to be executed through undue influence and fraud. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff has obtained the plaint schedule property by virtue of the gift deed No.1174/1982, and he is the owner in possession of that property. The defendant, being the son of his elder sister, misrepresented the plaintiff and caused him to execute a sale deed in his favour with ulterior motives. The value stated in the sale deed is only Rs.10,000/- for ten (10) cents. It was further contended that the said document was caused to be executed through undue influence within six days from the date on which the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital where he was treated for his mental condition. The doctor, who treated the plaintiff, was examined as PW2, who deposed that the original plaintiff was suffering from Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiff was not suffering from any mental disorders and that he was perfectly capable of understanding the facts, and the document was executed with full knowledge of its implications. It is further contended that instead of Rs.10,000/- what was paid to the plaintiff is Rs.40,000/-. In support of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A5 series of documents were produced, and PW1 to PW4 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 series were produced, and DW1 to DW5 were examined. Exts.X1 to X5 were produced as the 3rd party exhibits. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a mental patient from 1986 onwards and was treated in the Medical Health Centre as an inpatient from 5.10.1992 to 18.10.1992 and again from 23.11.1994 till 8.12.1994, and he was discharged from the hospital only on 8.12.1994. The trial court further found that the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital only on 8.12.1994 and that Ext.A2 was executed on 14.12.1994. The medical evidence produced by the plaintiff and the evidence of PW2 would show that the plaintiff was again treated in the hospital on 24.1.1995 and many other days thereafter. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by that, the defendant preferred A.S. No.57 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The first appellate court found that based on Exts.X1 series, X2 and X3, the applications were preferred by the plaintiff for entering into an agreement with the government, and therefore, he was aware of the consequences and thus, the plea that he was suffering from an unsound mind or mental disorders cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit. While allowing the appeal, the first appellate court relied on the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and held that the documents executed by the plaintiff have some presumptive value. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri. D Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. By Judgment dated 25-10-2025 this Court had allowed the appeal. But later it was brought to the notice of this Court that the sole respondent had passed away, and hence the Judgment rendered wa