Dismissed

Panchami v. Amminikutty John

Kerala HC1 Feb 2016RSA/645/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal against the dismissal of a suit to set aside sale deeds, the Court held that the plaintiff's soundness of mind is a pure question of fact. Since the courts below found the deeds valid based on evidence of negotiation and lack of capacity to form rational judgment conclusively found, the appeal is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Panchami Vs Amminikutty John — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 645 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.74/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.208/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF 2 TO 5 :

¶9

1. PANCHAMI, W/O.SIVARAMAN, CHURALLIKOTTU VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

2. SIVAKUMAR @ RAJU, CHURALLIKOTTU VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

3. SIVANATH @ RATHEESH, CHURALLIKOTTU VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

4. SIVAKUMARI @ RAJANI P.R., CHURALLIKOTTU VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT :

¶15

1. AMMINIKUTTY JOHN, W/O.T.V.JOHN, THONNALLUR VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

2. T.V.JOHN, S/O.VARGHESE, THONNALLUR VEEDU, CHURALLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

3. M.R.SANKARAN, SUSEELA BHAVAN, THEGAPRA MURUPPEL, CHURULLIKODU.

¶18

4. BHASKARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MADUCKAYIL VEEDU, CHURULLIKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

R1 TO 2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

R.S.A.No.645 of 2009.

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2016.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The additional plaintiffs in a suit to set aside two sale deeds and for consequential reliefs are the appellants in this second appeal.

¶28

The suit property belonged to the deceased first plaintiff. The suit was instituted by the second plaintiff who

¶29

is the wife of the first plaintiff in her capacity as the best friend of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff died pending suit. Thereupon, plaintiffs 3 to 5 who are the children of the first plaintiff got themselves impleaded as additional plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff was suffering from schizophrenia and that he was not having sound state of mind when Exts.B1 and B2 sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants in respect of the

¶30

¶31

RSA.No.645/2009.

¶32

suit property. The defendants resisted the suit contending

¶33

that the first plaintiff was having a sound state of mind when Exts.B1 and B2 sale deeds were executed by him. The trial court, on an elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the plaintiffs have not established their case and consequently dismissed the suit. Though plaintiffs 2 to 5 took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶35

Ext.B1 is a document executed by the deceased first plaintiff on 30.4.1977. Ext.B2 is another document executed by the deceased first plaintiff on 27.3.1998. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that Exts.A7 to A11 documents and the evidence tendered by Pws.1 and 4 would show that the deceased first plaintiff was sufferring

¶36

RSA.No.645/2009.

¶37

from schizophrenia and that he was not having a sound state of mind at the time when Exts.B1 and B2 documents were executed. It is now settled that the question whether a contract is invalid due to unsoundness of mind depends on the fact as to whether the person concerned was capable of understanding the contract and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest. Ext.X1 would indicate that the first plaintiff was admitted at the Medical Health Centre, Peroorkkada, Thiruvananthapuram on 24.8.1996. PW1 is the Doctor who treated the deceased first plaintiff during 1996. PW4 is the Doctor who treated the deceased first plaintiff during 1986. Exts.A7 to A11 documents would indicate that the first plaintiff was a schizophrenic patient and was under treatment for the said ailment at different intervals from 24.8.1986. As noted above, the question to be considered is as to whether the deceased first plaintiff was capable of understanding the contract and capable of forming a rational judgment as to its

¶38

RSA.No.645/2009.

¶39

¶40

effect upon his interest at the time of execution of Exts.B1 and B2 sale deeds. The Doctor who was examined as PW4 has not stated that schizophrenic patients will not be able to understand the consequences of their acts. Exts.B6 to B8 are three letters sent by the deceased first plaintiff to the defendants. The fact that Exts.B6 to B8 are letters sent by the deceased first plaintiff to the defendants is not disputed. Exts.B6 to B8 would indicate that the deceased first plaintiff was consciously negotiating for the sale of the suit property with the defendants. The same would also indicate that the deceased first plaintiff was bargaining with the defendants for a higher price than what was agreed by them for purchasing the property. It is in the light of the said facts and circumstances, the courts below came to the conclusion that Exts.B1 and B2 documents are not vitiated. Further, the question as to whether the deceased first plaintiff was having a sound state of mind at the time when Exts.B1 and B2 documents were executed, is a pure question of fact

¶41

RSA.No.645/2009.

¶42

¶43

decided by the courts below on the materials available on record. The conclusion arrived at by the courts below on the said question cannot also be challenged in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

¶45

Kvs/-

¶46

// true copy //

¶47

PA TO JUDGE.

Panchami v. Amminikutty John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchami v. Amminikutty John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sasidharan Vs Fasalul Rahiman

Joseph Thomas Vs Baby Mathews

Nani Vs Viswambharan

St.Peter'S and St.Pauls'S Orthodox Syrian Church Vs Cheria @ Cherian

Manuel Vivera Vs the Union of Anglo Indian Association

Indu Vs Ponnappan