Bench:

• Y.V Chandrachud (CJ)
• Fazalali
• Syed Murtaza
• Koshal A.D

Issue:

Whether Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption?

Facts:

• Mansaram had allegedly executed a deed of adoption in favour of the appellant but the Registrar refused to register that deed in his order Exhibit 2, in 1940, on the ground that Mansaram who presented the deed for registration appeared to him a lunatic.

• The matter was rermanded by Mahakma Khas to the Registrar with a direction that Mansaram be recalled and the question whether the deed should be registered be decided afresh.

• The registrar thereupon examined Mansaram and passed an order Exhibit 3, stating that Mansaram, no doubt, appeared to be a little better but that, while at one time he talked like a same man, he would, on occasions fall into a reverie and was completely lost to the world.

Enroll the Complete MasterClass Course on Hindu Laws: Click Here

• The Registrar noted that Mansaram was unable to understand the simplest questions put on him, 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.

• A suit was then brought by the appellant for compulsory registration of the deed in the Court of Joint Kotwal. A written statement was filed by appellant admitting that he was validly adopted by Mansaram. Chief Justice of the High Court examined the matter and directed an issue to framed on whether Mansaram was of sound mind and capable of holding his own interest.. Mansaram had stated he had an MA in English but did not understand a single sentence in English. All his answers were found to be without logic.

• The Joint Kotwal held that Mansaram was not of sound mind and was incapable of holding his own interest in the suit. He also noted that Mansaram looked tutored for making certain statements and looked frightened.

• An another deed of adoption was alleged to have been executed by Mansaram in August 1944, stating that he had adopted the appellant, Madan Lal. The deed did not mention the year, date or place of adoption or the persons present at the time of adoption. There was no evidence of where and when the adoption took place.

• A suit to challenge that deed was dismissed by the trail court. The District Judge, Jodhpur, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. But in the second appeal a single Judge Bench of Rajasthan High Court set aside the judgment of the courts below and decreed the suit.

• By this appeal by special leave, the defendant questioned the correctness of the High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court.

Judgment:

The Court declared the appeal to be failed and dismissed it. There was no order as to costs. The court further mentioned that once the judgment was properly understood there was no charter for inference by the High Courts with findings of facts recorded by the final court of facts. The situation in this case was of 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.

Relevant Paragraphs:

On a broad and careful reading of the plaint we are left in no doubt that the real drift of the plaint is that Mansaram was not in a fit state of mind at the relevant time, that no adoption could have taken place in fact and that, therefore, the deed of adoption cannot confer on the appellant the rights of an adopted son.

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 cloud 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, affects 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.