These appeals arise from the decision in O.S.No.214 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. A.S.No.162 of 2002 is by the plaintiffs and R.F.A.No.796 of 2009 is by defendants 1 to 4. The suit was one for partition of plaint B schedule properties.

2. Plaint B schedule properties belonged to one Maanu @ Mohammed. The fifth defendant is the first wife and the sixth defendant is the second wife of Maanu. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Maanu in his first wife and defendants 7 and 8 are the children in his second wife. Maanu died on 7.3.1994. The case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of Maanu, the plaint B schedule properties devolved on the plaintiffs and the defendants. While defendants 1 to 5 supported the claim of the plaintiffs for partition, defendants 6 to 8 opposed the claim contending that Maanu had transferred a portion of plaint B schedule properties to them and that the said portion is not partible. According to the plaintiffs, Maanu was not having a sound state of mind and therefore, the alienations, if any, made by Maanu are void and not binding on plaint B schedule properties.

3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the plaintiffs and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.B1 to B8 documents on the side of the defendants. A document called for at the instance of the plaintiffs was marked as Ext.X1 in the proceedings. Among the documents produced by the defendants 6 to 8, Exts.B3 to B5 are the documents by which a portion of the plaint B schedule properties was transferred by Maanu in their favour.

4. The trial court held that the documents executed by Maanu in favour of defendants 6 to 8 are not void and accordingly, passed a decree for partition in respect of the remaining properties. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court in so far as a decree was not granted to them in respect of the properties transferred by Maanu to defendants 6 to 8.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4, relying on Ext.X1 case sheet called for from the Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode, contended that Maanu was suffering from Manic Depressive Psychosis and was on treatment for the said ailment for the period from 17.6.1979 to 24.6.1979. According to him, in so far as it was established that Maanu was suffering from the said ailment, it was for defendants 6 to 8 to establish that Maanu was not suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of execution of Exts.B3 to B5 documents in their favour. It was also contended by the learned counsel that since the said defendants have not adduced any evidence in that regard, the trial court should have held that the said documents are void. He relied on the decision of this Court in Mariam v. Varghese (1965 KLT 692) in support of said contention. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the said arguments, contending that when it is proved that Maanu was a person of unsound mind, the burden of proving that he had lucid intervals and that the documents were executed during the lucid intervals is on the contesting defendants.

7. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act provides that every person who has attained the age of majority and who is of sound mind is competent to contract. Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act defines 'sound mind' for the purpose of contracting, as follows :

"12. What is a sound mind for the purposes of contracting.-- 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.

Illustrations

(a) A patien