This second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC questions the correctness of judgement and decree dated 23.11.1982 passed by Special and Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1980 whereby the first appellate court has partly allowed Regular Suit No. 8 of 1978 dismissed by the trial court vide judgement and decree passed on 25.1.1980 in toto. Following substantial question of law was framed on 1.7.2019 when the appeal came up for hearing.
"as to whether the evidence on record as regards the sale agreement was rightly appreciated by the courts below on the aspect of unsound mind of the executant, if not, whether the suit could be dismissed by the trial court and the judgment so rendered was rightly affirmed by the first appellate court below".
Brief facts of the case are that a registered sale agreement relating to land in dispute was executed by one Sri Rajpati Singh on 25.8.1977 in favour of the appellants herein but due to failure on his part to execute the sale deed in terms thereof, the cause to issue the notice dated 18.11.1977 arose to the appellant-plaintiff herein. The notice was replied on 9.12.1977 by Rajpati Singh through his mother Smt. Sartaji as natural guardian on the pretext that Rajpati Singh was of unsound mind. The intention of the sale agreement was denied for lack of competence.
Non-performance of the agreement aforesaid gave rise to a Regular Suit No. 8 of 1978 which was instituted on 10.2.1978. Record reveals that an application i.e. 19 Ga was filed for appointment of a guardian of the defendant Rajpati Singh under Order XXXII Rule 3 read with Rule 15 CPC. The trial court passed an order on 11.5.1978 calling for a report from the Chief Medical Officer in order to test the bonafides of the application so filed. Chief Medical Officer appears to have submitted a report on 26.5.1978 whereafter by an order dated 29.5.1978, the trial court rejected the written statement filed on behalf of Rajpati Singh through the natural guardian (Sartaji), the mother. The application for appointment of guardian was also considered by the trial court and a detailed order was passed on 26.9.1978 whereby the prayer for appointment of guardian was rejected.
The order passed by the trial court on 26.9.1978 was assailed by filing a revision i.e. Civil Revision No. 03 of 1979 before the II Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh and the same was decided on 19.10.1979. As per the judgement rendered by the revisional court, it was left open for the trial court to go into the issue of mental unsoundness of Rajpati Singh by framing an appropriate issue. The revisional court further held that even if the trial court had declined to appoint the guardian of Rajpati Singh alleged to be mentally unsound, yet the trial court would not be precluded from entering into the real issue on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
It is in this background that legality of sale agreement dated 25.8.1977 was liable to be tested by the trial court both on the aspect of mental unsoundness of the executant as well as on other aspects in the light of the issues framed. The trial court framed as many as five issues. Issues no. 1 and 2 related to the execution of agreement and payment of Rs. 1500/- on the date of registration of agreement coupled with a payment of Rs. 4500/- already advanced by the plaintiff to Rajpati Singh towards sale consideration of the disputed land. Issue no. 2 was framed to adjudicate the plea of unsound mind raised in para-22 of the written statement filed by Smt. Vimla Devi who succeeded in place of Rajpati Singh being his legally wedded wife alongwith two children who are respondents herein.
This Court may note that the plea of unsound mind taken by the wife of the executant of sale agreement viz. Rajpati Sigh was a case set up in the background of several facts stated in the written statement. Interestingly, the written statement filed by the wife further averred that late Rajpati Singh was mentally unsound since her marriage. The wife Smt. Vimla Devi averred that it was she who being a housewife managed the house-hold affairs like an ordinary uneducated woman. The plea may be surprising but the evidence would unfold the truth.
At this stage it may be relevant to note that insofar as the appointment of guardian or manager of estate of a mentally unsound person is concerned, the matter at the relevant point of time was amenable under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. Having glanced through the legislative scheme of Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, it is gathered that for the appointment of guardian of person or manager of estate owned by a ''lunatic', a mechanism was prescribed through an application maintainable before the competent District Judge. Once appointment of guardian or manager of estate was made, the competent court alone would assume authority to deal with the property and secure the same for the benefit of a lunatic. No such order was, however, passed in the present case. The jurisdiction under the Indian Lunacy Act, as it reflects from the provisions contained therein, was not exclusionary insofar as the determination of the issue of ''unsound mind' is concerned. The order passed by the District Judge had a legal sanctity in any other proceeding before a competent civil court involving any such issue. It was equally competent for the civil court to go into the issue of unsoundness of mind of a person where a plea of this nature was taken. The jurisdiction under Indian Lunancy Act not being exclusionary would thus clearly imply that the issue of ''lunacy' or "unsound mind" for the purpose of its determination was within the competence of civil court too in absence of any bar. The position did not alter much with the coming into force of Mental Health Act, 1987. The position has, however, drastically changed with the enforcement of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Reference may be made to Section 116 of the said Act, which for ready reference, is extracted hereunder:
"116. Bar of Jurisdiction :- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the Board is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
Since the case at hand involved the application of Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, whereunder there was no bar upon the jurisdiction of the civil court, as such, any observation or finding recorded by the civil court in this regard would not suffer from the lack of jurisdiction.
Coming to the evidence led by the parties on the aspect of mental unsoundness of late Rajpati Singh, it is gathered that apart from medical reports, the trial court also took into consideration the answers to the interrogatories posed by the court.
The trial court has drawn inference on the basis of medical opinion according to which late Rajpati Singh was mentally unstable but response to the queries of the court shows that he was not a person of sound mind, therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below in favour of the respondent-defendant cannot be said to be altogether baseless. Insofar as the finding on the aspect of execution and contents of the sale agreement is concerned, the trial court has also recorded a finding in favour of the respondents on the basis of evidence available on record.
The appellants herein, feeling aggrieved against the judgement rendered by the trial court on 25.1.1980, filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC which was registered as First Appeal No. 47 of 1980. The appellate court below having regard to the questions raised, proceeded to consider the aspect of mental unsoundness of Rajpati Singh in detail and it is clear that on the aspect of execution and contents of the sale agreement, the evidence led before the trial court was also considered and appreciated.
The first appellate court having considered every aspect of the matter, allowed the appeal in part and a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1500/- was passed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff.
Having given my anxious consideration to the evidence available on record, this Court is not convinced with the submission that the courts below have erred in arriving at a finding on the aspect of unsoundness of mind of the executant of sale agreement-Rajpati Singh. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence of witnesses, medical opinion and the interrogatories of the court. To firm the utmost satisfaction of the Court, it may not be untrue to say that the plaintiff remained the sole witness to prove his case in absence of any supporting evidence. It was the plaintiff himself who deposed during cross-examination that Smt. Vimla Devi was married to late Rajpati Singh when he was 35-40 years of age. It is further evident from the plaintiff's statement that Smt. Vimla Devi's subjugation to marriage was trafficked by one Sheo Mangal Singh the real brother of late Rajpati Singh. It is only after such a trading that her marriage was solemnised with Rajpati Singh and out of the wedlock two children were born. The statement of the plaintiff in cross-examination by itself unfolds the truth about the state of mind of late Rajpati Singh to whom none except a vulnerable female would have married.
The trafficking of Smt. Vimla Devi at a tender age and later solemnizing her marriage with Rajpati Singh by itself is a testimony of the truth. This fact though remaining unnoticed, has since come in evidence of the plaintiff himself, strongly leans the case in favour of the respondents, as such, the courts below, in my humble opinion, have not erred to construe the evidence. It is also noteworthy that the oral evidence of two witnesses who witnessed the execution of sale agreement, have testified nothing regarding free execution of sale agreement, rather, the witnesses merely came to stand in the witness box to state nothing about the agreement. The ignorance on their part to depose a single fact about execution of the sale agreement, by no stretch of imagination, would lend any support to the case of the appellants-plaintiff, therefore, the entire evidence led by the appellants-plaintiffs has rightly been construed as unconvincing to prove the case.
It may also be noted that the registering authority also recorded a remark on the registered sale agreement about the physical appearance of late Rajpati Singh yet on account of obtaining signature of Nirmala Devi on the sale agreement, the document was registered. Smt. Nirmala Devi had doubtful identity and the courts below have rightly dealt with this aspect of the matter as well. Once a person is held to be of unsound mind, the provisions of Indian Lunacy Act come into play and no transaction for want of an order passed by the District Judge would validate dealing with the estate of a ''lunatic' which in the present case was certainly lacking. That apart, the sale agreement at the relevant point of time while the consolidation was going on, seems to have been obtained in order to defeat the statutory requirement of prior permission as prescribed under law.
For all these reasons, the reasoning recorded by the courts below for rejecting the claim of specific performance of the sale agreement is sound, proper and tenable in the eye of law. The decree for recovery is, however, affirmed on an equitable consideration.
The second appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sri Adnan Ahmad who was appointed as amicus curiae for the respondents. A sum of Rs. 12000/- as per the standing orders is allowed to be reimbursed to Sri Adnan Ahmad in lieu of the services rendered as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondents.
Order Date :- August 30, 2019 Fahim/-