Case: Mahammadunni'S Son Kappatta Kathokandath Bava Vs. Kunhoosa'S Son Ampalath Veettil Kunnathodath Mahammadunni &amp;

2. 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.

Court's reasoning:
9. Defendant No. 4 relied on three documents in support of the submission that defendant No. 3 was not a sane person to enter into marriage with defendant No. 1. The first document is Exhibitwhich is an order dated 8 November, 1958 declaring defendant No. 3 to be a person of unsound mind. In that order defendant No. 4 was appointed guardian of the property of defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 1 was appointed guardian of the person of defendant No. 3. The second document is Exhibitdated 7 September 1959. The appellant submitted that on 7 September 1959 defendant No. 3 wanted to get herself declared as a person of sound mind. By an order dated 5 February 1960 being Exhibitthe District Judge dismissed the application of defendant No. 3. The third document on which the appellant relied is the suit in this appeal where defendant No. 3 on 19 November, 1957 was impleaded as a person of unsound mind.10. The appellant contended that though Exhibitnamely, order dated 8 November 1958 declaring defendant No. 3 as a person of unsound mind was not a judgment in rem but it was a judgment interparties and it would, therefore, be admissible under sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act. The appellant also contended relying on the decision in Amanchi Seshamma v. Amanchi Padmanabha Rao(1) that once a person is adjudged insane it is presumed that state of unsoundness will continue until proved to the contrary.Counsel for the appellant therefore contended that the conclusion of the High Court that defendant No. 3 was in a lucid interval at the time of marriage was against the overwhelming documentary evidence.11. The documents relied on by the appellant do not rule out lucid interval at the time of marriage on 30 August 1959. The High Court relied on the evidence of D.W. 4 who attended the marriage. D.W. 4 was a teacher. His evidence was that defendant No. 3 at the time of marriage talked with Musaliar. His further evidence was that Musaliar called defendant No. 3 and she went near him and told him that he was being authorised by her to give her in marriage to defendant No. 1. The High Court rightly found that defendant No. 3 gave her consent to the marriage and was in her lucid interval.