KARUMANDA GOUNDER versus MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 10-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARUMANDA GOUNDER 
v. 
MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ORS. 
JANUARY 10, 1996 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Property--Partition between brothers-One of the brothers gifting 
certain properties which was subsequently sold by the donee--Other brother 
objecting to the transactions claiming the properties to be joinl--Also claim-
C 
ing that his brother has become lunatic and hence not capable of alienating 
the properties-Trial Court holding him to be 'mild lunatic'-High Court held 
that in view of admitted partition, the other brother had no right over the 
propertie,-.()n appeal held : There is no such thing as 'mild lunatic'--A 
person of weak intellect not lunatic--Also not declared as lunatic under the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Lunacy Acl-Hence alienation validly made-Lunacy Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.76 of the Madras High 
Court in A. No. 644 of 1972. 
A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant. 
Sivasubramanium, Rakesh K. Sharma and Rajendra K. Choudhary for 
the Respondent Nos. 1-3. 
Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Sheela Rao and S. Balakrishnan for the 
Respondent No. 4. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant herein, Karumanda Gounder, was one Of the defendants 
in the suit. He was a brother to Komaraswamy Gounder. At one point of time 
they had joint properties with their father. A partition took place between them 
which was put to some doubts. Out of the properties allotted to Komaraswamy 
Gounder, a parcel of land was gifted by him to M.K. Komaraswamy Gounder. 
When Muthuswamy Gounder the plaintiff respondent wanted to purchase that 
property, he persuaded the donor and the donee to sell the property to him in 
unison. That having occasioned; resistance was faced by the plaintiff-respond-
344 
~ 
... , 
, 
( 
~ 
.. 
' 
' 
) 
, 
K.GOUNDER~M.GOUNDER 
345 
ent from the present appellant on the ostensible plea that the properties were 
A 
joint. The plaintiff-respondent concededly after sale had not been put to 
possession of the property. This led to the suit for possession by the plaintiff-
respondent. 
Amongst other pleas, the star plea of the appellant was that his brother 
B 
Komaraswamy Gounder was a lunatic; hence, he was incapable of selling or 
gifting the property. Further there had been no partition and the question of 
the sold property having fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder did 
not arise. When the parties went to issue before the trial court, the plaintiff-
respondent failed as the court took the view that Komaraswamy Gounder was 
mildly a lunatic; the properties were joint and that the alleged interest in the c 
properties by the appellant, was justified. The High Court, on appeal, however, 
reversed the findings recording that Komaraswamy gounder was not a lunatic 
; the properties amongst brothers stood partitioned as conceded to by the 
appellant, and that the property in dispute had fallen to the share of 
Komaraswamy Gounder. On that basis, the right of the appellant to question 
D 
the gift and the sale deed was negatived inasmuch as on date he had no right 
over the property. Thus, the High Court put the appellant to the position of 
an interloper; not even a proper party to the suit, what to talk of a necessary 
party. It is to upset these findings that the appellant is before us, in appeal. 
We have heard Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the 
E 
appellant. He has taken us through the lengthy judgments prepared by the 
subordinate court as also that of the High Court. It is prominently noticeable 
that no effort ever had been made by the appellant to have his brother 
Komaraswamy Gounder declared as a lunatic from the District Court under 
the Lunacy Act. Even on the findings recorded by the subordinate Court, 
F 
there is hardly any substance to entertain the view that he was a lunatic. A 
person has tc be adjudged a lunatic whereafter certain consequences may 
follow. There is no such thing as a 'mild lunatic'. A person may be of a weak 
intellect; incapable of inanaging his affairs, but that per se, would not nrake 
him a lunatic. Once partition stands conceded and the property in dispute 
fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder and the plea of his being a 
lunatic rejected, the appellant has no stake left to pursue the appeal. It is far-
fetched to assume that Komaraswamy Gounder would some day die intestate 
G 
and issueless on which the appellant might 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.