MAHAMMADUNNL'S SON KAPPATTA KATHOKANDATH BAVA versus KUNHOOSAS SON AMPALATH VEETTIL KUNNATHODATH MAHAMMADUNNI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 02-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

85 8 
A 
MAHAMMADUNNl'S SON KAPPATTA 
KATHOKANDATH 
B 
c 
D 
BAVA 
, v. 
KUNHOOSA'S SON AMPALATH VEETTIL KUNNATHODATH 
MAHAMMADUNNI & ORS. 
December 1, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. FL BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
Partition suit-Proof of marriage-Insanity-Lucid interval-A person ad· 
judged insane whether continues to be so till proved to the contrary. 
The plaintiff who is son of defendant No. 3's mother's brother filed a suit for 
• 
partition of properties which belonged to the mother and father of defendant 
No. 3. 
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of brothers of defendant No. 3's 
mether. Defendant No. 4 is the son of defendant No. 3's father's brother. 
Defendant No. 3 died duri'ng the pendency of the suit. 
Thereafter, defendant 
No. 1 filed his additional written statement and claimed' half share in the pro-
perty of defendant No. 3 on the ground that defendant No. 3 married defendant 
No. 1 after the suit was instituted. 
The Trial Court allotted different shares to various defendants in the pro-
perties left by defendants No. 3 's mother and father which are nd longer in 
dispute. The U"ial Court found that defendant No. 4 alone was entitled to the 
share of defendant No. 3 on the ground that the marriage of defendant No. 3 
with defendant No. 1 was not proved. The trial Court also found that defen-
J
dant No. 3 was mentally unsound to enter into any marriage. 
f' 
E 
F 
On appeal, the High Court held that defendant No. 1 was married 
to 
defendant No. 3 ancl defendant No. 3 was in a lucid interval at the time of 
marriage. 
On an appeal by certificate to this Court, the counsel for the appellant 
contended : (I) that the finding of the High Court both with regard to the 
fact of marriage and that the marriage took place during a !Ucid interval were 
erroneous; (2) that defendant No. 3 was not a sane person as is clear first from 
an order declaring defendant No. 3 to be a person of unsound mind, whereby 
defendant No, 4 was appointed guardian of the property of defendant No. 3 
and defendant No. 1 was appointed guardian 9f the person of defendant No. 3. 
Secondly the application of defendant No. 3 to be declared herself as a person 
of sound mind was rejected by the District Judge. Thirdly, in the present 
suit defendant No. 3 was impleaded as a person of unsound mind; and (3) 
that once a person is adjudged insane it is presumed that state of unsoundness 
would continue until proved to the contrary. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) The documents relied op by the appellant do not rule 
out 
G 
lucid interval at the time of marriage. The High Court relied on the evidence 
of D.W. 4, a teacher, who attended the marriage. He deposed that defendant 
No. 3 gave her consent to the marriage and was in her lucid interval at that 
time. The High Court rightly found that defendant No. 3 gave her consent 
to the marriage and was in her lucid interval. The conclusion of the Higlot 
Court on both the questions, is based on evidence and is correct. [860E-H] 
u 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1268 of 
1970. 
From the Judgment and order dated 17th July 1969 of the Kerala 
High Court in A.S. No. 217 of 1964. 
jr
1
MAHAMMADUNNI V. KUNHOOSA (Ray, C.J.) 
859 
T. S. Krishnanworthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and P. K. Pillai for the 
A 
Appellant. 
A. S. Narnbiyar for Respondent No. 2. 
(Appeal set down ex-parte against respondents 1 and 5-21 Res-
pondent 4 expired : Name of respondent 3 deleted). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C.J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 
17 July 1969 of the High Court of Kerala. 
B 
The question in this appeal is whether defendants No. 1 and 4 are 
each entitled to share in the property allotted to defendant No. 3 in a 
partition decree. Defendant No. 4 is the appellant. 
C 
This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 19 November, 1957 
for partition of properties. Properties mentioned in Schedule A and 
B to the plaint belonged to the mother of defendant No. 3. Properties 
mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint were joint properties of the father 
and the mother of defendant No. 3. 
The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are the sons of one of the 
brothers of the mother of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the son 
of another brother of the mother of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 
is the son of defendant No. 3's father's brother. 
Defendant No. 3 died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter 
defendant No. 1 filed his a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.