SONA BALA BORA AND ORS. versus JYOTIRINDRA BHATACHARJEE

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 11-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SONA BALA BORA AND ORS. 
v. 
JYOTIRINDRA BHAT ACHARJEE 
APRIL 11, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Contract Act, 1872 : 
ss. 11 and 12-Contract with consent of a person of unsound mind-
Unsoundness of mind-Establishing of-Held, capacity of a person to execute 
a conveyance has not to be established only by medical evidence-Unsoundness 
of mind may be established by proving such conduct as was not only not in 
keeping with the character of the person concerned but such that it could not 
be explained on any reasonable basis-In the instant case, the actions of the 
D head of the family surreptitiously selling the residential house and depriving 
his entire family as also initiating criminal proceedings against his wife and 
children without cause are irrational ones and outcome of mental disorder-
Trial court and single Judge of High Court rightly dismissed the suit of the 
vendee. 
E 
Appeal-Assessment of evidence-Held, is inevitably subjective-If the 
assessment of lower courts is such thr;it it cannot be reasonably sustained, the 
decision should be set aside on appeal, otherwise appellate court should be 
slow to interfere with a concurrent factual inference. 
Specific performance of contract-Parties entering into a compromise 
F in a criminal case-Husband agreeing to gift one of the bungalows to the 
wife-Later, a third person claiming to have purchased the property-Suit by 
wife for declaration that sale was void and husband did not have absolute 
right to transfer the property-Held, since the agreement was never challenged 
either by the husband or the vendee, husband was bound by the agreement. 
G 
H 
Maxim-lnsanus est qui abjecta ratione omnia cum impetus et furore 
facit-Applicability of 
'B', the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of the other appellants, 
owned three bungalows, one of which was in occupation of the appellants. 
454 
..__ 
SONA BALA BORA v. JYOTIRINDRA BHATACHARJEE 
455 
In terms of a compromise arrived at between 'B' and appellant No. t in A 
a criminal case, 'B' was inter alia, to make a gift of the said bungalow to 
the first appellant. However, later the respondent filed a suit against the 
appellant and 'B' for a declaration that he was absolute and exclusive 
owner of the suit property; and for possession thereof, claiming that he 
purchased all the three bungalows from 'B' for Rs. 69,000. The appellants 
also filed a suit against the vendee and 'B' for a declaration that '8' did B 
not have the absolute right to transfer the property to the respondent; 
that the sale was void and be set aside; that they were not aware of the. 
transaction; and that '8' was bound by the terms of the compromise in 
the criminal case. The trial court dismissed the suit of the ".en dee holding 
that '8' was mentally imbalanced, and that the sale and mutation of the C 
property were without the knowledge of the appellants. Appellant No. 1 
was directed to repay Rs. 69,000 to the vendee. The latter's appeal was 
dismissed by single Judge of the High Court holding that 'B' not being 
the sole owner of the property, could not sell the same; and that '8' was 
mentally imbalanced when the sale deed was executed. However, the 
Division Bench allowed the vendee's appeal. Aggrieved, the wife and D 
children of 'B' filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. A contract of sale, like any other contract, would be 
vitiated if the consent of either party is given by a person of unsound mind E 
as provided in Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872. Under Section 12 of 
the Act, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of m~king 
the contract, if at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding 
it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. A 
person of unsound mind is thus not necessarily a lunatic. It is sufficient if p 
the person is incapable of judging the consequences of his acts. [462-C-D) 
Black's Law Dictionary (sixth Edition) p. 795, referred to. 
1.2. In a civil matter the issues have to be decided on a balance of 
probabilities. The question of the capacity of 'B' to execute the conveyance G 
did not have to be established only by medical evidence. The unsoundness 
of the mind may be established by proving such conduct as was not only 
not in keeping with the character of the person concerned but such that 
it could not be explained on any reasonable basis. The appellants' evidence 
to the effect that whenever '8

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