Madras High Court
Thambammal vs Subbayammal (Died) on 17 May, 2017
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.05.2017
RESERVED ON: 19.04.2017
PRONOUNCED ON: 17.05.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AS(MD)No.95 of 1990,
Cross Objection No.101 of 1991 and
MP(MD)No.1 of 2007
AS(MD)No.95 of 1990:-
1.Thambammal
2.V.Varadappa Naicker (died)
3.V.Selvaraj
4.Bemmayeeammal
5.Akkammal Appellants
Vs
1.Subbayammal (died)
2.R.Ramanujam
3.Bemmayee Ammal (died)
4.Thambammal
5.Chinnasamy
6.Thangaraj
7.Latha
8.Muthu Naicker Respondents
Cross Objection No.101 of 1991:-
1.Subbayammal (died) Cross
Objector
Vs.
1.Thambammal
2.V.Varadappa Naicker (died)
3.V.Selvaraj
4.R.Ramanujam Respondents
Prayer:- This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgement and decree dated
18.10.1989 made in OS.No.261 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur.
This cross objection has been filed against the judgement and
decree dated 18.10.1989 made in OS.No.261 of 1982 on the file of the Sub
Court, Karur, in so far as the disallowed portion thereof.
!For Appellants : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar-AS.95/90
For Respondents : Mr.Vijayakumar for Mr.K.Guhan-R8-AS.95/90
:JUDGEMENT
This appeal suit had been filed by the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants in OS.No.261 of 1982, aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1989 passed by the Sub Court, Karur. This cross objection had been filed by the Plaintiff in OS.No.261 of 1982, aggrieved by the denial of past and future mesne profits in the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1989 by the Sub Court, Karur. The above MP had been filed by one Muthu Naicker, son of Palanisamy Naicker, seeking permission to receive the judgement and decree in AS.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur, dated 4.4.2000, as additional document.
2. There were two suits in OS.No.261 of 1982 and OS.No.20 of 1984, which were tried jointly by the Sub Court, Karur and disposed of by the common judgement dated 18.10.1989. The Trial Court had decreed in part OS.No.261 of 1982, which had been filed for declaration to cancel the two sale deeds and one Will, which were said to have been executed by the 1st Defendant in the suit, by name, Nayandappa Naicker, who had subsequently died and also for recovery of possession and for past and future mesne profits. In the judgement, the Trial Court had granted declaration of cancellation of the documents and had also granted recovery of possession, but had denied granting mesne profits.
3. OS.No.20 of 1984 had been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into by the same Nayandappa Naicker. The said suit was dismissed.
4. The above appeal suit had been filed by the Defendants 2, 3 and 5, aggrieved by the judgement and decree in OS.No.261 of 1982. The above Cross Objection No.101 of 1991 had been filed by the Plaintiff, aggrieved by the denial of past and future mesne profits. As against the dismissal of OS.No.20 of 1984, the Plaintiff therein had filed AS.No.2 of 1999 and the said appeal was dismissed for default on 4.4.2000 in the Sub Court, Karur. MP.No.1 of 2007 had been filed to take on record as additional document the said judgement.
5. In OS.No.261 of 1982, the Plaintiff Subbayammal had stated that she was the 2nd wife of the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker. It had been further stated that Nayandappa Naicker was a person of unsound mind and consequently, in the plaint, he was represented by his next friend and guardian Sama Naicker. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the said suit, namely, Thambammal and V.Varadappa Naicker are spouses. The 5th Defendant in the said suit V.Selvaraj is their son. The 4th Defendant R.Ramanujam is a stranger, who was said to have an agreement of sale in his favour and consequently, he had been impleaded in the suit.
6. In the plaint, it had been stated that the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker was a man of substantial means and apart from the suit properties, he also had 50 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs.94,000/-. He had lent monies and collected promissory notes for such lending. Even after deduction of all expenses, he still had a cash inflow of Rs.3000/- every year. There was no necessity for him to deal in any manner with the immovable properties which he possessed. He had a first wife, by name, Bemmayeeammal. He was an aged person and during the evidence in the trial, it was revealed that he was aged nearly 93 years. The said Bemmayeeammal died on 27.2.1981. They had no issues. Even prior to 1981 for about 6 years, the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker was said to have been afflicted with mental illness. After the death of his wife, his mental incapacities increased to a high level. Taking advantage of the same, the Defendants 1 and 2 had exercised undue influence and made him to execute two sale deeds, one on 1.5.1981 with respect to the item (1) of the suit property in favour of the 2nd Defendant and another on 4.5.1981 with respect to the item (2) of the suit property in favour of the 3rd Defendant. They further influenced him to execute a Will with respect to the 3rd item of the suit property on 23.8.1981 in favour of the 5th Defendant. The suit had been filed, seeking declaration that the above two Sale Deeds and the Will are sham and nominal documents and are not valid in the eyes of law. It had been further stated that no consideration had passed as mentioned in the sale deeds. The Plaintiff claimed to be the 2nd wife and the only legal heir of Nayandappa Naicker. They had two sons, who died when they were very young. It had also been stated that an agreement of sale had been entered into with the 4th Defendant on 15.12.1978 and it was also sought that the said agreement should also be cancelled and declared as null and void.
7. The 1st Defendant had filed a written statement, stating that his actual age was 75 years and that he was healthy and mentally sound and that the documents had been executed by him with full knowledge and consequently, it had been stated that the suit should be dismissed.
8. The Defendants 2 and 3 had filed a separate written statement, stating that the sale deeds in their favour had been executed for a valid and adequate consideration. They denied that undue influence was exercised on the 1st Defendant. They further stated that the sale deeds are bona fide documents and the suit should be dismissed.
9. The 4th Defendant had also filed a written statement, stating that the agreement of sale dated 15.12.1978 is an enforceable agreement. The sale consideration mentioned was Rs.5,000/- and he had given an advance of Rs.3,000/-. He further stated that he was ready and willing to pay the balance Rs.2,000/-. In this connection, he had stated that he had filed OS.No.1478 of 1981 in the District Munsif Court, Karur, seeking specific performance and he also stated that the suit should be dismissed.
10. The 5th Defendant had also filed a written statement, stating that the Will dated 23.8.1981 was executed while the 1st Defendant was in a healthy state of mind and there were also attestors to the Will. He also prayed that the suit should be dismissed.
11. The Defendants 2 and 3 had filed an additional written statement, stating that it was false that the Plaintiff was the only legal heir of Nayandappa Naicker. It was also stated that it was false that the Plaintiff was entitled for maintenance from the estate of Nayandappa Naicker. It had been stated that after the death of the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker, the Will in the name of the 5th Defendant had come into force.
12. During the pendency of the suit and even before commencement of trial, the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker died. The Plaintiff being sole legal heir continued to prosecute the suit.
13. On consideration of the pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the following issues for trial:-
1.Whether the sale deeds in favour of the Defendants 2 and 3 are true and valid documents?
2.Whether the Will in favour of the 5th Defendant is a true and valid document?
3.Whether the 4th Defendant is entitled for specific performance of the agreement in his name?
4.Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
5.To what reliefs is the Plaintiff entitled?
14. As stated above, the 5th Defendant Ramanujam had filed OS.No.1478 of 1981, seeking specific performance of the agreement in his favour and this suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Karur and renumbered as OS.No.20 of 1984. The pleadings in the said suit were similar to the Plaintiff's relief seeking specific performance and the Defendant's relief seeking that the agreement is not a genuine agreement. In the said suit, the following two issues had been framed:-
1.Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance?
2.To what reliefs is the Plaintiff entitled?
15. Both the suits were tried together. OS.No.261 of 1982 was taken up as the primary suit, in which evidence with respect to both the suits was let in. On the side of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff herself examined as PW.1. Sama Naicker, who had been appointed as guardian and next friend of Nayandappa Naicker, the 1st Defendant during his life time since it was stated that he was a person of unsound mind, was examined as PW.2 and an independent person Lingappan was examined as PW.3. On the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked. Ex.A1 is the sale deed dated 1.5.1981 executed in favour of the 2nd Defendant. Ex.A2 is the sale deed dated 4.5.1981 executed in favour of the 3rd Defendant. Ex.A3 dated 31.8.1949 is the certified copy of the judgement in the earlier suit for maintenance in OS.No.269 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. Ex.A5 dated 29.7.1981 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS.No.160 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. Ex.A6 dated 13.10.1981 is the written statement filed by Nayandappa Naicker in the said suit. Ex.A9 is the promissory note in favour of Bemmayeeammal by Ellammal dated 3.6.1975. Ex.A10 is the promissory note executed in favour of Nayandappa Naicker by Perumal dated 19.8.1979. Ex.A12 dated 9.7.19778 is another promissory note executed by T.Varadappa Naicker in favour of Nayandappa Naicker. Ex.A21 is another promissory note executed by Veerappa Naicker dated 18.8.1979 in favour of Nayandappa Naicker. Ex.A22 is another promissory note executed by Jothi Naicker in favour of Nayandappa Naicker dated 2.8.1980. Ex.A23 dated 31.7.1981 is the copy of advocate notice issued on behalf of Nayandappa Naicker to Lingappa Naicker. Ex.A24 dated 31.7.1981 is another copy of advocate notice issued on behalf of Nayandappa Naicker to Rangasamy Naicker.
16. On behalf of the Defendants, the 3rd Defendant Varadappa Naicker was examined as DW.1 and an independent person was examined as DW.2. The 4th Defendant was examined as DW.3 and three other independent persons, by name, Lingappan, R.Ponnusamy and Anwar Basha were examined as DW.4 to DW.6. The Defendants marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B12. Ex.B1 dated 29.11.1982 is the partition deed by the 3rd Defendant and others. Ex.B2 is the sale deed in favour of the 3rd Defendant executed by Muthiah dated 30.9.1970. Ex.B3 dated 6.7.1981 is the sale deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant by Perumal Naicker. Ex.B4 dated 12.7.1973 is the sale deed in favour of Palanisamy Naicker by the 1st Defendant. Ex.B5 dated 29.2.1980 is the sale deed by the 1st Defendant in favour of Chellammal. Ex.B6 dated 4.6.1980 is the sale deed executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of Palsamy. Ex.B7 dated 25.4.1972 is the sale deed in favour of Muthappan Gounder by the 1st Defendant. Ex.B8 dated 15.12.1978 is the agreement of sale in favour of 5th Defendant. Ex.B9 is the notice issued on behalf of the 1st Defendant to the 4th Defendant dated 31.7.1981. Ex.B10 dated 12.8.1981 is the reply to the said notice. Ex.B11 dated 24.8.1981 is the rejoinder notice. Ex.B12 dated 23.8.1981 is the copy of the Will executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 5th Defendant.
17. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court had decreed OS.No.261 of 1982 and had dismissed OS.No.20 of 1984 by a common judgement dated 18.10.1989. The Trial Court found that the 1st Defendant, Nayandappa Naicker, who died during the proceedings, suffered from schizophrenia as per Ex.A14 and further found that he was a man of very advanced age, certainly more than 90 years. The court also took the assistance of evidence of PW.2 Sama Naicker, who had been appointed as his legal guardian during the judicial proceedings and also found that the condition of the deceased 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker deteriorated drastically after the death of his wife Bemmayeeammal on 27.2.1981 and finally found that Ex.A1 sale deed dated 1.5.1981 in favour of the 2nd Defendant, Ex.A2 sale deed 4.5.1981 in favour of the 3rd Defendant and Ex.B12 dated 23.8.1981 in favour of the 5th Defendant have been executed by exercising undue influence and consequently, held that the said three documents are invalid in the eyes of law. The Trial Court further found that the agreement of sale Ex.B8 dated 15.12.1978 in favour of the 4th Defendant cannot be acted upon and consequently, decreed OS.No.261 of 1982 with respect to the title of the property and dismissed OS.No.20 of 1983. However, the Trial Court did not grant past and future mesne profits. It is against that finding that this Cross Objection No.101 of 1991 had been filed.
18. Before this court, the learned counsel for the Appellant stated that the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker had actually been examined under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC and he was examined by a Doctor and certificates were also available in IA.No.206 of 1983. However, since the 1st Defendant died during the proceedings, the Trial Court did not proceed with the said examination and evidence to its logical conclusion. The learned counsel further pointed out Ex.A10 dated 17.8.1979, Ex.A12 dated 9.7.1978, Ex.A20 dated 15.3.1998, Ex.A21 dated 18.8.1979, Ex.A22 dated 2.9.1980, Ex.A23 dated 31.7.1981 and Ex.A24 dated 31.3.1981 as promissory notes and also legal notices issued by Nayandappa Naicker and consequently stated that the allegation that he was mentally unsound five years prior to his death cannot be accepted as true. Nayandappa Naicker died on 24.2.1985 and his first wife died on 27.2.1981. The learned counsel further pointed out the written statement of the 1st Defendant, when he was alive, wherein he had refuted the allegations of the Plaintiff.
19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 8th Respondent stated that it had been found as a fact that the deceased Nayandappa Naicker suffered schizophrenia and consequently it would be very improbable that he would have executed the document out of free will and conscious. The learned counsel pointed out that these documents, which are under challenge, namely Ex.A1 , Ex.A2 and Ex.B12, have been executed in favour of one single family immediately after the death of first wife of Nayandappa Naicker and these are sufficient suspicious circumstances to strike down the documents. The learned counsel pointed out the evidence of PW.2 Sama Naicker and also the evidence of DW.6, who was the attestor to the Will Ex.B12. The learned counsel stated that the judgement of the Trial Court does not deserve any interference.
20. I have carefully considered the rival arguments.
21. The 1st Respondent in this appeal Subbayammal, who died pending the proceedings and whose legal representative had been brought on record as the 8th Respondent, was the Plaintiff in OS.No.261 of 1982. She had filed the plaint in her capacity as a living second wife of the 1st Defendant Nayandappa Naicker. Even in the plaint, Nayandappa Naicker was shown as a person of unsound mind and was represented by his guardian and next friend Sama Naicker. It has also been stated in the plaint that the said Nayandappa Naicker was a person with much immovable properties and also gold jewels and cash holdings. The status of the Plaintiff had been recognized in OS.No.269 of 1948 which she had filed before the District Munsif Court, Karur, seeking maintenance. The judgement and decree in the said suit dated 31.8.1949 had been marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. Nayandappa Naicker had a first wife by name, Bemmayeeammal. They had no issues. Through the Plaintiff, two sons were born, but both of them died at a very young age. Consequently, after the death of the first wife, Bemmayeeammal, the Plaintiff claimed that she was the sole surviving legal heir to the estate and holdings of Nayandappa Naicker. In that capacity, she had filed the suit, complaining that Nayandappa Naicker had been influenced by the Defendants 2, 3 and 5, who are husband, wife and son and members of one single family. Owing to such influence, he had executed Ex.A1 sale deed dated 1.5.1981 with respect to the item (1) of the suit property in favour of the 2nd Defendant. He had also executed Ex.A2 another sale deed dated 4.5.1981 with respect to the item (2) of the suit property in favour of the 3rd Defendant, who is the husband of the 2nd Defendant. He further executed a Will bequeathing all these properties on 23.8.1981 in favour of the 5th Defendant. The property mentioned in the Will had been described as the item (3) of the suit property.
22. It is to be seen that the first wife of the 1st Defendant died on 27.2.1981. There is a specific averment in the plaint that Nayandappa Naicker had much affection for his first wife and he was a man of more than 90 years age. Even from 1975 onwards till the date of death of his first wife Bemmayeeammal in 1981, his mental capacity was slowly reduced. This contention is very seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Appellant, who pointed out as stated above, the documents marked as Ex.A10, Ex.A12, Ex.A20, Ex.A21, Ex.A22, which are promissory notes dated 17.8.1979, 9.7.1978, 15.3.1978, 18.8.1979 and 2.9.1998. The learned counsel pointed out that these promissory notes relate to the period between 1975 and 1981, during which time, it had been alleged that the mental capacity of the deceased Nayandappa Naicker was decreasing. However, the fact that the promissory notes had been executed had been pointed out to show that the said assertion that the mental capacity was decreasing cannot be accepted as true.
23. The learned counsel also pointed out Ex.A23 and Ex.A24 both dated 31.7.1981, which are copies of legal notices issued under the instructions of the 1st Defendant. With respect to the contention about the promissory notes, they relate to monies lent by Nayandappa Naicker. These transactions were during the time of his first wife Bemmayeeammal. It is also on record that he was a man of substantial means and in fact, he had nearly 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and a cash of Rs.94,000/-. Naturally when his first wife was alive, as a person of means, he was approached for lending money and promissory notes were executed by the borrowers. These are not documents executed by Nayandappa Naicker. These are the documents executed in favour of the Nayandappa Naicker. As a matter of fact, a careful perusal of the documents reveals that Ex.A8 dated 31.5.1973 was sale deed in favour of Bemmayeeammal by Annammal for Rs.40,000/-. Ex.A9 dated 3.6.1975 is a promissory note in favour of the Bemmayeeammal by Ellammal for Rs.10,000/-. Ex.A11 dated 17.8.1980 is another promissory note in favour of Bemmayeeammal by Perumal for Rs.10,000/- . These documents show that Bemmayeeammal played a predominant role in handling the cash of Nayandappa Naicker. Till the time she was alive, she had control over the finance of the family. However, her death on 27.2.1981 had changed the entire situation. There is also a specific averment in the plaint that Nayandappa Naicker had placed great affection on her and her death had very seriously affected him mentally. Ex.A13 dated 25.6.1983 and Ex.A14 dated 26.5.1983 are medical documents with respect to the mental condition of Nayandappa Naicker.
24. Ex.A13 is an out patient slip of Government Hospital, Dindigul. The name of Nayandappa Naicker is found and his age has been given as 83. It is dated 25.5.1983. It shows that he had been under treatment continuously on 26.5.1983, 27.5.1983, 28.5.1983, 29.5.1983, 30.5.1983, 3.6.1983, 4.6.1983 and 5.6.1983. Ex.A14, which has been relied by the Trial Court, is a slip dated 26.5.1983 in which it is mentioned as ?SCHIZ' . This was relied on by the Trial Court to hold that Nayandappa Naicker suffered from schizophrenia. Even otherwise, it is seen that the person was aged 83 years. He had just lost his wife. It was under those trying circumstances that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 had been executed very immediately after her death. In this connection, the evidence of PW.2 Sama Naicker is very crucial. According to him, Nayandappa Naicker was a person of unsound mind. All the witnesses consistently stated that he was very much affected by the death of his wife.
25. In 2013-8-SC-83 (Veerpal Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence) the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the impact of schizophrenia. In that case, an Officer, who was born on 1.10.1953 and who was diagnosed as schizophrenia in 1988, was a person aged around 45 years. In the instant case, the person is very old aged of more than 83 years and according to evidence, he is aged 93 years. In the said judgement, in paragraph 12 to 16, the Honourable Supreme Court had observed as follows:-
?12. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary ?Schizophrenia? has been described as a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in delusions), perception (as in hallucinations), and behavior ? called also dementia praecox; Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that has affected people throughout history.
13. National Institute of Mental Health, USA has described ?Schizophrenia?
in the following words:
?Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder?that has affected people throughout history. People with the disorder may hear voices other people don?t hear. They may believe other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify people with the illness and make them withdrawn or extremely agitated. People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk. They may sit for hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people with schizophrenia seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking. Families and society are affected by schizophrenia too. Many people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a job or caring for themselves, so they rely on others for help. Treatment helps relieve many symptoms of schizophrenia, but most people who have the disorder cope with symptoms throughout their lives. However, many people with schizophrenia can lead rewarding and meaningful lives in their communities.?
14. Some of the symptoms of schizophrenia are:
14.1. Positive symptoms:- Positive symptoms are psychotic behaviours not seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms often ?lose touch? with reality. These symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment. They include the following:
Hallucinations ? ?Voices? are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Hallucinations include seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odors that no one else detects, and feeling things like invisiblefingers touching their bodies when no one is near.
Delusions - The person believes delusions even after other people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. They may also believe that people on television are directing special messages to them, or that radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes they believe they are someone else, such as a famous historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and believe that others are trying to harm them.
Thought disorders - are unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called ?disorganized thinking?. This is when a person has trouble organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically, a person with a thought disorder might make up meaningless words, or ?neologisms?.
Movement disorders - may appear as agitated body movements. A person with a movement disorder may repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme, a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in which a person does not move and does not respond to others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.
14.2. Negative symptoms Negative symptoms are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviours. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for depression or other conditions.
These symptoms include the following:-
i.?Flat affect? (a person?s face does not move or he or she talks in a dull or monotonous voice) ii.Lack of pleasure in everyday life iii.Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities iv.Speaking little, even when forced to interact.
15. In Modi?s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (24th Edn. 2011) the following varieties of Schizophrenia have been noticed:
Simple Schizophrenia ? the illness begins in early adolescence. There is a gradual loss of interest in the outside world, from which the person withdraws. There is an all round impairment of mental faculties and he emotionally becomes flat and apathetic. He loses interest in his best friends who are few in number and gives up his hobbies. He has conflicts about sex, particularly masturbation. He loses all ambition and drifts along in life, swelling the rank of chronically unemployed. Complete disintegration of personality does not occur, but when it does, it occurs after a number of years.
Hebephrenia- hebephrenia occurs at an earlier age than either the katatonic or the paranoid variety. Disordered thinking is the outstanding characteristic of this kind of schizophrenia. There is great incoherence of thought, periods of wild excitement occur and there are illusions and hallucinations. Delusions which are bizarre in nature, are frequently present. Often, there is impulsive and senseless conduct as though in response to their hallucination or delusions. Ultimately the whole personality may completely disintegrate.
Katatonia - katatonia is the condition in which the period of excitement alternates with that of katatonic stupor. The patient is in a state of wild excitement, is destructive, violent and abusive. He may impulsively assault anyone without the slightest provocation. Homicidal or suicidal attempts may be made. Auditory hallucinations frequently occur, which may be responsible for their violent behaviour. Sometimes, they destroy themselves because they hear God? voice commanding them to destroy themselves. This phase may last from a few hours to a few days or weeks, followed by stage of stupor.
The katatonic stupor begins with a lack of interest, lack of concentration and general apathy. He is negative, refuses to take food or medicines and to carry out his daily routine activities like brushing his teeth, taking bath or change his clothes?. The activities are so very limited that he may confine himself in one place and assume one posture however uncomfortable, for hours together without getting fatigued. His face is expressionless and his gaze vacant?. They may understand clearly everything that is going on around them, and sometime without warning and without any apparent cause, they suddenly attack any person standing nearby.
Paranoid Schizophrenia, Paranoia and Paraphrenia - Paranoia is now regarded as a mild form of paranoid schizophrenia. The main characteristic of this illness is a well elaborated delusional system in a personality that is otherwise well preserved. The delusions are of a persecutory type. The true nature of the illness may go unrecognized for a long time because the personality is well preserved, and some of these paranoiacs may pass off as social reformers or founders of queer pseudo-religious sects. The classical picture is rare and generally takes a chronic course.
Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned,some noxious gases are blown into his room and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions.
Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus, may change from persecutory to grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his money and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and others.
The name paraphrenia has been given to those suffering from paranoid psychosis who, in spite of various hallucinations and more or less systemized delusions, retain their personality in a relatively intact state. Generally, paraphrenia begins later in life than the other paranoid psychosis.
Schizo Affective Psychosis - Schizo affective psychosis is an atypical type of schizophrenia, in which there are moods or affect disturbances unlike other varieties of schizophrenia, where there is blunting or flattening of affect. Attacks of elation or depression, unmotivated rage, anxiety and panic occur in this form of schizophrenic illness.
Pseudo-Neurotic Schizophrenia - schizophrenia may start with overwhelmingly neurotic symptoms, which are so prominent that in the early stages, it may be diagnosed as neurosis. When schizophrenia begins in an obsessional personality, it may for a long time remain disguised as an apparently obsessional illness.
16. In F.C.Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman in their book titled ?The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry? (1966 Edn.) observed:
?Some schizophrenic reactions, which we call psychoses, may be relatively mild and transient; others may not interfere too seriously with many aspects of everyday living...?(p. 252) Are the characteristic remissions and relapses expressions of endogenous processes, or are they responses to psychosocial variables, or both? Some patients recover, apparently completely, when such recovery occurs without treatment we speak of spontaneous remission. The term need not imply an independent endogenous process; it is just as likely that the spontaneous remission is a response to non-deliberate but nonetheless favourable psychosocial stimuli other than specific therapeutic activity . . . . (p.
465) (emphasis supplied)?
26. It is clear that a person having schizophrenia disease cannot be expected to have full control of his senses. This is all the more important when we examine the present case, when the documents have been executed very immediately after the death of a beloved wife and when the person was aged more than 83 years. It is also to be taken in conjunction with the fact that Ex.A2, Ex.A2 and Ex.B12 were executed in favour of one single family. Even otherwise, DW.6 who is the attestor of Ex.B12 Will had given very unconvincing evidence. He did not know the facts surrounding the execution of the Will. With respect to Ex.A2, DW.2 was examined and during his cross examination,again she floundered. No witnesses were examined to speak about the circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.A1. On the other hand, PW.2, during his chief examination and during his cross examination, stated that Nayandappa Naicker was a person, who required assistance for his mental afflictions. Morever, Ex.A17 and Ex.A18, which had been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent, throw light on the fact that Nayandappa Naicker was actually not well and consequently, in another suit he did not file his affidavit, seeking adjournment. Even in Ex.B12, it had been stated that the left thumb impression of Nayandappa Naicker alone had been affixed. All these circumstances would show that the documents are shrouded with suspicious circumstances. The very fact that one single family benefited out of the execution of Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.B12 also shows that Nayandappa Naicker was in the clutches of the said family.
27. With respect to OS.No.20 of 1984, as stated above, an appeal had been filed which had been dismissed for default. The application has been filed to bring on record the said judgement as additional evidence. The said documents had been allowed much earlier by this court. However, the said appeal had been dismissed for default and consequently, the finding in OS.No.261 of 1982 with respect to Ex.B8, agreement of sale dated 15.12.1978 holding that the said document is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and cannot be acted upon has become final.
28. For the reasons stated above, I hold that on balance of probabilities, suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A8 and Ex.B12 far outweigh the presumption that they were executed out of normal and voluntary disposition of mind. I find that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgement and decree of the court below.
29. In the result, this appeal suit is dismissed with costs. The cross objection is also dismissed, as arguments have not been advanced and there is also no oral or documentary evidence let in during the trial. The connected MP is closed.
To:
1.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
2.The Sub Court, Karur.