Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi and another
Citation -
AIR 1980 SC 1754
Honourable Judges -
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.I., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL
Issue -
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), Section 100 and Section 101
Date of Judgement -
Aug 29 1980
Case Number : Aug 29 1980
Judgement:
CHANDRACHUD, C. J.:- A deed of adoption is alleged to have been executed by one Mansaram on April 30, 1969.
2. The principal point of controversy involved in the suit was whether Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption. This, substantially, is a question of fact but we find that the trial Court and the District Court wholly ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances on the record and allowed their judgments to be influenced by inconsequential matters. The High Court was, therefore, justified in reappreciating the evidence and in coming to its own independent conclusion on the basis of that evidence.
3. Earlier, Mansaram had allegedly executed another deed of adoption in favour of the appellant Madan Lal but the Registrar refused to register that deed by his order Exhibit 2 dated January 29, 1940 on the ground that Mansaram, who presented the deed for registration, appeared to him to be a lunatic. The matter was remanded by the Mahakma Khas to the Registrar with a direction that Mansaram be recalled and the question whether the deed should be registered decided afresh. The Registrar thereupon examined Mansaram and passed an order Exhibit 3 dated July 14, 1940, stating that Mansaram, no doubt, appeared to be a little better but that, while at one time he talked like a sane man, he would, on occasions, fall into a reverie and was completely lost to the world. The Registrar noted that Mansaram was unable to understand the simplest questions put to him, that he took an unreasonably long time to answer those questions and gave wholly incorrect answers to elementary questions like whom he had adopted and whether he himself was married or unmarried. The Registrar, therefore, reaffirmed his pre-remand view and refused to register the deed.
4. A suit was then brought by the appellant on
5. The deed of adoption dated
6. Relying on the evidence of Somdatt D. W. 2, Shri Raj Narain D. W. 6, a lawyer, Moolraj D. W. 9 and Dr. Umraomal, D. W. 10, Shri Sobhagmal Jain argues that Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the impugned deed. We are unable to accept this submission. Indeed, the halting evidence of Dr. Umraomal itself throws a could on the mental capacity of Mansaram and renders it improbable that he could perform or authorise the performance of the act of adoption or that he could have executed the deed of adoption with an understanding mind. His mental faculties were evidently too enfeebled to enable him to enter into a transaction which in law has a religious-cum-spiritual significance and which, in a worldly way, affect valuable rights to property. The High Court has examined every facet of the evidence with great care and we are in agreement with the learned Judge that Mansaram was not in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption. He could not have, possibly, understood the nature and consequences of what he was doing.
7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
8. May we add that this judgment, properly understood, will not be a charter for interference by the High Courts with findings of facts recorded by the final Court of facts. The situation, here, was of an exceptional character where evidence which was incapable of supporting more than one conclusion was considered as justifying a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal could rationally reach.
Held:
Appeal dismissed.
