This appeal is filed against the decree and

judgment of trial court and the first appellate court

in a suit for setting aside a document of alienation

alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff and

recovery of possession. The said property originally

belonged to the plaintiff. He had executed deed of

conveyance/sale deed in favour of the defendant in the

year 1989 and parted with possession of the property.

The defendant, the predecessor, who is a stranger to

the plaintiff took possession of the property. While

so the present suit was filed by the wife of plaintiff

as next friend of the plaintiff stating that the

plaintiff was not having sufficient mental capacity to

dispose of the property and hence sought to set aside

the document and to recover the property. Both the

trial court and the first appellate court concurrently

rejected the contention of the plaintiff and dismissed

the suit.

2.

In so far as the mental condition of the

original plaintiff, the husband is concerned, the

3

factual finding rendered by the courts concurrently

cannot be interfered with unless there is perversity or

illegality in the appreciation of evidence. Needless

to say that if the plaintiff found to be capable of

doing acts, deposition, the suit as framed would not

stand and even the capacity to represent the plaintiff

by his next friend, his own wife, will go. The suit

was filed after the expiry of 4 ½ years from the date

of execution. In order to maintain a suit after the

lapse of 4 ½ years, the plaintiff has to establish that

the original plaintiff, her husband, was incapacitated

due to any mental ailment in disposing of his property

and it was continued till it came to her notice.

3.

In so far as the mental capacity of plaintiff

is concerned, no sufficient enquiry much less any

enquiry was conducted. Ext.A1 is only a medical

certificate issued by an Ayurvedic Doctor. The ailment

is stated as “unmadam” as reffered in Ashtangahridayam.

Nothing was brought to the notice of this court that

“Unmadam” stands for any mental ailment making the

person incapacitated to understand things or to take a

rational judgment. What is relevant is lack of sound

4

state of mind and it is heavily upon the plaintiff to

establish that by virtue of the ailment the person was

incapacitated to make any deed of alienation or to deal

with the property. Apart from the certificate issued

by the Ayurvedic doctor and treatment records, nothing

else was brought to the notice of this court to satisfy

any mental ailment to the extent of making him not to

know the legal consequences of his act at the time of

executing Ext.A2 sale deed. Further even in the case

of schizophrenia, the document which was executed

during the lucid interval are valid. The expression

'lucid intervals' stands for the time during which a

person of unsound mind acquires stability of his mental

condition and whatever acts and deeds done would be

valid as if it were done by the person having no

ailment at all. No case of schizophrenia or incurable

mental disorder of such a nature making such person not

to know the consequences of his act either established

or brought up. Hence the concurrent finding rendered

by both the courts below deserves no interference.

None of the questions of law raised at the time of

admission of appeal involved in the appeal. Hence the

5

appeal deserves only dismissal, but without costs.

The appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

SV

JUDGE