Holding

The Supreme Court held that there is no legal notion of "mild lunatic," the brother was not declared lunatic under the Lunacy Act, the partition was valid, and consequently the appellant had no right to contest the gift and sale.

Summary

Karumanda Gounder appealed against a High Court order that upheld the sale of a parcel of land originally gifted by his brother Komaraswamy Gounder to a third party and then sold to Muthuswamy Gounder. Karumanda claimed the land was joint family property and that his brother, being a "mild lunatic," lacked capacity to alienate his share. The trial court accepted the lunacy claim and held the property joint, but the Madras High Court reversed, finding no lunacy declaration, recognizing a valid partition, and concluding the parcel belonged to Komaraswamy, making Karumanda a mere interloper. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that "mild lunatic" is not a legal concept, no lunacy declaration existed under the Lunacy Act, and the partition was established, rendering the appellant without any right to challenge the gift and sale. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a person declared a lunatic under the Lunacy Act can validly alienate his share of partitioned property.
Whether the concept of "mild lunatic" is recognized in law.
Whether the partition between the brothers was effective, thereby affecting the appellant's claim of joint ownership.

Subjects

partitionlunacygiftsalepropertyjoint ownershiplegal capacityinterloper

Judgment

~
... ,
A KARUMANDA GOUNDER
v.
MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ORS.

JANUARY 10, 1996

B [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

Property--Partition between brothers-One of the brothers gifting
certain properties which was subsequently sold by the donee--Other brother
objecting to the transactions claiming the properties to be joinl--Also claim-
C ing that his brother has become lunatic and hence not capable of alienating
the properties-Trial Court holding him to be 'mild lunatic'-High Court held
that in view of admitted partition, the other brother had no right over the
propertie,-.()n appeal held : There is no such thing as 'mild lunatic'--A
person of weak intellect not lunatic--Also not declared as lunatic under the
Lunacy Acl-Hence alienation validly made-Lunacy Act.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1982.
,
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.76 of the Madras High
Court in A. No. 644 of 1972.

E A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.

Sivasubramanium, Rakesh K. Sharma and Rajendra K. Choudhary for
the Respondent Nos. 1-3.

Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Sheela Rao and S. Balakrishnan for the
F Respondent No. 4.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellant herein, Karumanda Gounder, was one Of the defendants
in the suit. He was a brother to Komaraswamy Gounder. At one point of time
G they had joint properties with their father. A partition took place between them
which was put to some doubts. Out of the properties allotted to Komaraswamy
Gounder, a parcel of land was gifted by him to M.K. Komaraswamy Gounder.
When Muthuswamy Gounder the plaintiff respondent wanted to purchase that
property, he persuaded the donor and the donee to sell the property to him in
H unison. That having occasioned; resistance was faced by the plaintiff-respond-
344
( ~
..

K.GOUNDER~M.GOUNDER 345
ent from the present appellant on the ostensible plea that the properties were A
joint. The plaintiff-respondent concededly after sale had not been put to
possession of the property. This led to the suit for possession by the plaintiff-
respondent.

Amongst other pleas, the star plea of the appellant was that his brother
Komaraswamy Gounder was a lunatic; hence, he was incapable of selling or B
gifting the property. Further there had been no partition and the question of
the sold property having fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder did
not arise. When the parties went to issue before the trial court, the plaintiff-
' respondent failed as the court took the view that Komaraswamy Gounder was
mildly a lunatic; the properties were joint and that the alleged interest in the c
properties by the appellant, was justified. The High Court, on appeal, however,
reversed the findings recording that Komaraswamy gounder was not a lunatic
; the properties amongst brothers stood partitioned as conceded to by the
appellant, and that the property in dispute had fallen to the share of
Komaraswamy Gounder. On that basis, the right of the appellant to question D
the gift and the sale deed was negatived inasmuch as on date he had no right
over the property. Thus, the High Court put the appellant to the position of
'
an interloper; not even a proper party to the suit, what to talk of a necessary
party. It is to upset these findings that the appellant is before us, in appeal.

We have heard Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the E
appellant. He has taken us through the lengthy judgments prepared by the
subordinate court as also that of the High Court. It is prominently noticeable
)
that no effort ever had been made by the appellant to have his brother
, Komaraswamy Gounder declared as a lunatic from the District Court under
the Lunacy Act. Even on the findings recorded by the subordinate Court, F
there is hardly any substance to entertain the view that he was a lunatic. A
person has tc be adjudged a lunatic whereafter certain consequences may
follow. There is no such thing as a 'mild lunatic'. A person may be of a weak
intellect; incapable of inanaging his affairs, but that per se, would not nrake
him a lunatic. Once partition stands conceded and the property in dispute
fallen to the share of Komaraswamy Gounder and the plea of his being a
G
lunatic rejected, the appellant has no stake left to pursue the appeal. It is far-
fetched to assume that Komaraswamy Gounder would some day die intestate
and issueless on which the appellant might have a claim to succeed to his
estate. Even this plea is presumptuous, because the property in dispute has
already been gifted and then sold to the plaintiff-respondent. The claim of H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R.
A the plaintiff-respondent for possession, thus, was legitimate in the facts and
circumstances. The questions raised herein by Mr. Sampath, learned counsel,
to upset the view of the High Court are essentially those of fact. It 'would
be difficult for us to upset those orders of the High Court in this jurisdiction.

The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
B
G.N. Appeal dismissed.