Mohinder Singh and Others vs Rachhpal Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—In this regular second appeal, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1984 passed by

Additional Senior Sub Judge, Batala and judgment and decree dated 14.12.1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Brief facts of

the case are that appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land measuring 6 kanals 4 marlas as detailed in the headnote of the plaint and

mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1974-75 situated in revenue limits of Batala Garbi, Tehsil Batala including the building constructed thereon

consisting of two rooms and one kitchen marked ABCD in the plan attached to the plaint alleged to be owned by Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh

was a person of unsound mind and he was kept in illegal confinement by Manjit Singh son of Amar Singh. To secure the release of Mangal Singh

from the illegal confinement of Manjit Singh, Gurcharan Singh son of Mangal Singh filed an application u/s 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for obtaining search warrant for the search and recovery of Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh was mentally deranged and unable to form rational

judgment as to the management of his affairs. For the last four years prior to his death he was not in a position to take care of his body, health and

his own interest so efforts were being made by the respondent-defendant No. 2 and other brothers and sisters of Mangal Singh to save the

property belonging to Mangal Singh from dissipation. Mangal Singh was an old man of 95 years and he was infirm mentally and blind. His mental

faculties had become incapacitated for the last about four years prior to his death. He died on 30.11.1981. He was karta of the joint Hindu Family

managing the affairs. Rachhpal Singh - respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 contested the suit on the ground that Mangal Singh was of sound

disposing mind. He remained of sound disposing mind till his death managing and looking after his affairs. Mangal Singh sold the property in dispute

in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.03.1981. He was perfectly of sound disposing mind. It is alleged that the

impugned sale deed is legal and valid.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:--

Whether the sale deed dated 24.03.1981 allegedly executed by Mangal Singh deceased in favour of the defendant No. 1 is void, illegal, without

consideration and is the result of fraud and undue pressure exercised on him? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession as claimed? OPP

Relief.

The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.1984 recorded findings against the appellants-plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and

decree, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

14.12.1985. Hence, this regular second appeal. This appeal was admitted on 19.09.1986. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law

was framed. However, during the pendency of the present appeal, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record:--

Whether in the absence of sale deed dated 24.03.1981, alleged to be executed by Mangal Singh in favour of Rachhpal Singh - defendant No.

1, being produced and proved by evidence, the suit of plaintiff can be dismissed?

Whether it was incumbent on courts below to give finding on issue No. 1 before giving finding on issue No. 2 as mentioned in para No. 3 of the

Appellate Court?

Whether Courts below have misread the evidence of Kehar Singh PW-2 who on seeing Mangal Singh in an unsound mind scored off his

signatures?

Whether judgments of Courts below are vitiated in view of facts that no finding on issue No. 1 regarding execution of sale deed has been given

by both the Courts below?

Whether judgments of Courts below are perverse as inference and onus has been wrongly placed upon appellant/plaintiff?

From the perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees, this Court feels that the only short question involved in the present appeal is:--

Whether Mangal Singh was in sound and disposing mind on 24.03.1981 when the impugned sale deed was executed by him?

There is categorical evidence of Dr. Raj Kumar, Retired Senior Medical Officer, Mental Hospital, Amritsar, who told the story regarding the

mental state of Mangal Singh during those days. In the statement of Dr. Raj Kumar, it has come that Mangal Singh was an old man of 89 years. He

was examined by him on 06.01.1981 for the first time and thereafter examined on 13.01.1981, 21.1.1981, 01.02.1981, 05.02.1981 and

10.02.1981. On 10.02.1981, he formed the opinion that due to his high blood pressure and old age, mental changes were in all probability

irreversible and as such he was not mentally and physically fit to look after himself and his affairs. By `irreversible'', he meant `not curable''. He

gave certificate dated 10.02.1981 Ex. P1/A on application Ex. P1 moved by Mohinder Singh - appellant/plaintiff. As per the evidence, Mangal

Singh could not tell his name. He could not name his son Mohinder Singh who was accompanying him. He could not say how many children he

had. He could not name the day, date or year. His ideation and expression was poor. On 13.01.1981, he was examined again. He was restful,

slept better and was little more cooperative, but there was no change in his mental condition. On 21.01.1981 he was reported to be irregular in

taking medicine and had gone weak. There was change in his mental condition. On 01.02.1981 Mangal Singh had become restless, ate poorly,

eased in clothes. He did not reply correctly the questions put to him, continued to be disoriented to time place and person. Immediate memory was

impaired. He could not tell his age, when he retired and how long he had worked in Military. It is categorical statement of Dr. Raj Kumar that

Mangal Singh had come only for treatment. Had he come for being observed alone, he would not have given him any treatment. He would have

gone in minute details. He did not produce any record to show that he had prescribed such and such medicines for him. If he had told about the

medicines prescribed by him, he could have been able to gauge whether he was a person of unsound mind and to what extent he was a person of

unsound mind and whether or not he was getting any lucid intervals. It could have been gauged whether he was suffering only from fits of insanity

and after fit was over, he was a normal being. Statement of Dr. Raj Kumar does not throw any light on these aspects. Merely because Mangal

Singh was having high blood pressure or that he could not supply information on any point namely his name, his sons'' name who was

accompanying him or how many children he had, it cannot be said that he was a person of unsound mind and that he was always so without any

lucid intervals.

The sale deed was registered one and attested by the office of Sub Registrar. When the sale deed was brought before the Sub Registrar, he

attested it, the presumption would be drawn that the sale deed was in order and was an act of a person of sound mind, and that was why it was

attested by the Sub Registrar. To displace a registered sale deed, burden lies heavily upon the appellants-plaintiffs.

Statement of PW2 Kehar Singh has been disbelieved by the Courts below that if the father of the appellants was of unsound mind then the

appellants would have immediately raised hue and cry. It would be appropriate that deceased Mangal Singh remained alive for about 8 months

after the execution of sale deed and it was not immediately challenged by any of the persons.

The finding of fact has been recorded, after appreciating the evidence, by the trial Court. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned

judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. In view of the above, no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Dismissed.