Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Jayachandran, Thundiyil Kizhakkathil, Valathunkalcheri, Iravipuram Village, Kollam District vs R. Vijayaleskhmi Amma, W/o. G. Harikrishnan...
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2167 : The court found that the 2nd plaintiff executed the sale deed while of sound mind, meaning he had the physical and mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions at the time of execution. The judgment affirms that a person suffering from intermittent mental illness can execute valid contracts during lucid intervals, provided they are mentally competent at the time of execution.Checking relevance for Sherly D''''Souza, W/o. Denzil D''''Souza VS Marie Celine D''''Souza, D/o. Late Duncan Fernandez...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1106 : The court emphasized that the mental capacity of the deceased at the time of the execution of the settlement deed was critical to its validity. The plaintiffs'''' claim that the deed was invalid due to the father''''s lack of mental capacity during execution was considered, and the court upheld the First Appellate Court''''s finding that the deed was void based on prior findings of mental incapacity at the time of execution.Checking relevance for Josekutty VS Tom Sojan...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1449 : The trial court, after conducting an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, found that the first plaintiff was competent to represent and protect her interests at the time of execution of the gift deeds (Ext.A7 to A9). The court specifically rejected allegations of physical and mental incapacity, noting that the evidence did not support claims of mental incapacity and that mere influence does not amount to undue influence under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the first plaintiff was deemed to have had sufficient physical and mental capacity at the time of execution of the deeds.Checking relevance for V. P. Veerankutty Haji VS V P Kunhalankutty...
1989 0 Supreme(Ker) 527 : The court found that the evidence of mental capacity, execution and registration of the gift deed, and management of the partnership business were crucial in determining the validity of the gift deed. Specifically, the mental capacity of the deceased at the time of execution of the gift deed was a key factor considered in the judgment, and the court relied on such evidence to uphold the gift deed.Checking relevance for Kunhalima, W/O Late Mahammed VS Mahammed, S/O. Aboobacker...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 258 : The court examined the physical and mental capacity of the executant, Mahammad, at the time of the execution of the sale deed in 1989. It concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Mahammad was not of sound mind at the time of execution. The judgment emphasizes that to challenge the competence to contract due to unsound mind, there must be concrete evidence, particularly medical evidence, and that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the contract. The court upheld the validity of the sale deed, finding that the executant had the necessary mental capacity to contract, as no sufficient evidence was presented to establish his unsoundness of mind at the time of execution.
