B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants and shri Uday Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal.
(3.) The plaintiffs filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.3.1993. The plaint allegation was that her husband Chandrama Singh was suffering from mental illness and it is during this period that the defendant respondents herein, got a sale deed of the property in question executed in their favour from Chandrama Singh. The plaint allegations were denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants and it was stated that at the time when the sale deed was executed by Chandrama Singh he was in his full senses and he was not suffering from any mental decease or any other decease which might have render him incapacitated to execute the said sale deed. The trial court however decreed the suit on the ground that the dispute in question is not a civil dispute but rather a dispute of a criminal nature and therefore the M'Naghten principle has no application and therefore it was not necessary to call Chandrama Singh in Court and examine him and to make an assessment of his mental capability to execute the sale deed dated 22.3.1993. The trial court also held that the plaintiff has filed oral as well as documentary evidence in order to show that Chandrama Singh was undergoing treatment in the Ranchi Mental Hospital and the record keeper of the said Hospital was also examined and therefore it was held that he was undergoing treatment in the mental Hospital. It was also held that the record disclosed that as on 5.11.1988 Chandrama Singh's mental condition was not good and that for 25 days he was admitted in the mental Hospital, Ranchi. Thereafter he was again admitted in the Hospital from 13.7.1989 to 29.7.1989 and these dates are four years prior to the date of execution of the sale deed. He was also under treatment in the mental Hospital as an outdoor patient on 29.12.2001. On the second point as to whether the sale deed did not contain any consideration therefore it was invalid, the trial court has held that the defendants in the sale deed stated that Rs. 25,000/- was paid in the presence of Sub Registrar and Rs.15,000/- had already been paid prior to the execution of the sale deed whereas the plaintiff has denied the allegation. The trial court has held that the burden of proving payment of consideration lay on the defendants. The trial court has held that D.W. 1 has stated that Rs.25,000/- was paid in the presence of the Sub Registrar whereas Rs. 15,000/- was paid prior to the execution of the sale deed and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff Smt. Kanti Devi in the State Bank of India, Bariya Kotwa. However, D.W. 2 in his cross examination has stated that the signature on the sale deed of Chandrama Singh was made in the presence of the Sub Registrar and thereafter Chandrama Singh went to the Central Bank Raniganj Branch to deposit the money. The trial court has therefore held that since there is a difference between the amount stated to have been deposited by Chandrama Singh in his account and the two statements are at variance, therefore, the defendants have not been able to discharge the burden which lay upon them of proving that the adequate consideration had been given in respect of the sale deed. On the question of the suit being barred by time no issue was framed by the trial court.;