Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bisahu would submit that after the matter was referred to the trial Court, the doctor who had treated the appellant Bisahu was examined. He would submit that it would be very relevant to note that the agreement which is on record is dated 15.06.2001 and the Doctor in his deposition stated that he examined Bisahu on 04.09.2001 wherein Bisahu was shown to be suffering with Paranoid Schizophrenia. He further submits that the suit was filed on 12.09.2002 and even the permission to the defendant was granted to appear through the next friend and the evidence would reveal that it has come on record that Bisahu was suffering from mental disorder prior to execution of the agreement thereby it establishes the fact that on 15.06.2001, Bisahu was not in a fit state of mind to execute the document. Therefore, it is submitted that as per Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, Bisahu cannot be stated to be capable of understanding or forming a rational judgment which affects his interest and consequently, the agreement cannot be acted upon being outcome of fraud. He further submits that the circumstances also speak itself that almost maximum amount of Rs.80,000/- though was paid out of Rs.84,000/- and only Rs.4000/- was retained thereby it creates a doubt about the conduct and circumstances in which it exist. He further submits that the agreement also contains signature of the seller only thereby the purchaser cannot be allowed to enforce the agreement.

12. After the case was referred to the trial Court, the record would show that the doctor treating Bisahu was examined on 20.12.2013. The Doctor has stated that on 04.09.2001 according to register of the patients, Bisahu was brought to the Hospital for the first time. He further stated that after examination of Bisahu, he was diagnosed with paranoid Schizophrenia and it was grave in nature. In the cross examination, he stated that he according to his records, Bisahu was not brought to the hospital before 04.09.2001 and he was not able to state the fact that how long he was suffering before the date of such examination. He further stated that subsequently he was again brought on 19.09.2001 and thereafter he had not treated. Apart from this evidence, the statement of Madan Singh Verma was recorded on 17 th January, 2014. He also narrated the same fact that Bisahu was suffering with unsound mind for the last 20 years. Therefore, reading of the entire statement of the Doctor which was recorded after the matter was referred to the trial Court, would show that pertinent evidence has not come on record as to what was the condition of Bisahu on the date of execution of agreement i.e., 15.06.2001. According to the statement of Doctor, he was treated on 04.09.2001 whereas prior to that in the month of June 2001 the agreement was executed. The defendant Bisahu has taken a stand that on the date of agreement i.e., 15.06.2001 he was man of unsound mind. When a transaction was attempted to be impeached on the ground that the person who has executed the document was a man of unsound mind, the initial onus undoubtedly lies on the person who comes up with the case that the executant was a person of unsound mind. Normally the presumption is of sanity. Therefore, in the present case, initially the burden was on the defendant Bisahu to show that on the date of execution of agreement i.e., 15.06.2001 he was man of unsound mind. When the matter was referred to the court below after the first round of litigation, Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla was examined on 20.12.2013. The doctor has also not stated that on 15.06.2001 what was the mental condition of the executor Bisahu, therefore, the evidence is silent about mental state of Bisahu on the date of agreement.

15. With respect to cross objection raised by the respondent Purushottam, admittedly, initially when the appeal was filed by Bisahu, no cross objection was preferred and execution proceeding was filed for recovery of the amount. The matter was remitted back to the court below by order of this Court dated 07.09.2012 wherein the enquiry was directed to be made and after enquiry, the trial Court by its order dated 11.02.2014 gave a finding that on the date of execution of agreement i.e., 15.06.2001, it cannot be held that Bisahu was suffering with mental disorder, therefore, the appeal revived again. At that stage, the cross objection for execution of the sale deed has been prayed for. Presently, the evidence is on record that after 04.09.2001, the doctor has certified the fact that Bisahu was suffering with mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia meaning thereby he is incapable of understanding or forming any rational judgment which affects his interest. In this case, Bisahu was represented through his next friend, the wife. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the subsequent development which has taken place, it will be relevant to refer section 20 of the Specific Relief Act which reads as under: