The burden of proof regarding unsoundness of mind lies on the party alleging it, and there must be sufficient evidence to demonstrate sanity during a lucid interval.

1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was for cancellation of three sale deeds, Exts. XVI, V and X. The suit was dismissed by the court below and the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

2. The first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff who was alleged to be insane on the date of suit. The first plaintiff filed the suit as the next friend of the second plaintiff. The sale deeds, Exts. V and XVI, were executed by the second plaintiff. Ext. XVI dated 8-8-1117 was in favour of the first defendant and the property conveyed was item 1 in the plaint schedule, 91 cents in extent, which was sold for Rs. 588/-. Ext. V dated 1-7-1118 was in favour of the third defendant and it related to item 2, four cents of land and a small building, sold for Rs. 780/. The first defendant sold item No.1 to the second defendant under Ext. X dated 24-8-1118. Exts. XVI and V were sought to be set aside on the ground that the second plaintiff was a person of unsound mind on the dates of execution of the two sale deeds. Ext. X was sought to be set aside as Ext. XVI was invalid. It was also alleged in the plaint that the two sale deeds, Exts. XVI and V, were for inadequate consideration and that the same was an indication that the second plaintiff was of unsound mind at the relevant time. The second plaintiff had attacks of insanity and he was detained in the Mental Hospital at Oolampara, Trivandrum, on six occasions, five of which were before the execution of the two sale deeds. He was treated for insanity at the mental hospital from 9-8-1103 to 22-8-1104, 2-2-1106, to 30-2-1106, 27-12-1110 to 26-8-1111, 6-4-1112 to 32-11-1112,18-10-1115 to 4-5-1117 and 12-8-1120 to 28-11-1122. Plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the two items with mesne profits and also the value of a building in item No.1 which was alleged to have been demolished by the vendee.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit. Their main contentions were that the two sale deeds were executed during lucid intervals when the second plaintiff was capable of entering into contracts and that the first plaintiff was not competent to institute the suit on behalf of the second plaintiff as he was of sound mind on the date of the plaint. The first defendant died during the pendency the suit and as he had alienated item No.1 to the second defendant, nobody was impleaded as his legal representative. The third defendant also died and his legal representatives have been brought in as additional defendants 4 to 10.

4. The suit was decreed in 1955 setting aside the sale deeds and allowing the first plaintiff to recover possession of the properties with mesne profits. Defendant 2 as well as defendants 4 to 10 preferred appeals to the High Court. The appeals were allowed and the suit was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision. Witnesses were examined after the remand and the court dismissed the suit entering findings adverse to the plaintiffs on the two main contentions raised by the defendants.

5. The question for decision is whether the sale deeds are liable to be set aside.

6. It is admitted by the contesting defendants that the second plaintiff had attacks of insanity on five occasions before the execution of the sale deeds. He was discharged from the mental hospital on 4-5-1117 and was readmitted on 12-8-1120. It was during this interval that the two sale deeds were executed. It is the common case of both sides that the case should be governed by S.12 of the Indian Contract Act which reads as follows:

"12. A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind.

A person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind."

7. Counsel