“Under RDL – Contracts Valid During Lucid Intervals for Declared Lunatics”
Burden of Proof Rests with Party Alleging Mental Incapacity
The Supreme Court in a recent case stressed that when no prior court declaration exists to suggest otherwise, the burden of proof was on the party who alleges that someone is not in a proper mental condition. This ruling underscores the principle that, allegations of mental incapacity must be first substantiated with concrete evidence.
The case revolved around the ownership of a property originally owned by Baby Nona, who had transferred the land to her son-in-law, the Plaintiff, after revoking prior deeds of gift to her children, including the Defendant. The Defendant contested this transfer, arguing that Baby Nona lacked the mental capacity to revoke the earlier deeds and to transfer the property.
The District Court initially ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, rejecting the Defendant’s claims regarding Baby Nona’s mental capacity. However, the High Court of Gampaha reversed this decision, placing the burden of proof on the Plaintiff to establish that Baby Nona was of sound mind when executing the deeds.
On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred by misplacing the burden of proof. The Court emphasized that it was the Defendant’s responsibility to prove that Baby Nona lacked the mental capacity to execute the deeds, as he was the one asserting this claim. The Supreme Court reiterated that without a prior court declaration of mental incapacity, the presumption of sound mind stands, and it is up to the challenging party to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
“….At this juncture, I prefer to refer to section 555 to 565 of the Civil procedure Code where the provisions are available for application, inquiry and adjudication of whether a person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs.In the matter at hand, no such adjudication or any other declaration to similar effect made by a Court has been tendered in evidence. Thus, such presumption mentioned above cannot be arisen. This indicates that the burden was on the Defendant to prove that the Baby Nona did not have a proper mental condition to revoke the gifts made to him and to Gunaratne and execute the deed of transfer to the Plaintiff at the time those deeds were executed as it was the Defendant who alleged the mental incapacity of Baby Nona in his answer and raised the said issues mentioned above….”
“……Hameed v Marikar 52 NLR at page 272, where it was held that, “Whether the mortgaged bond entered into by Razeena Umma was null and void, is a matter of interest. If it was executed by her in a lucid interval, it would under the Roman Dutch Law be considered valid. Under the English law however once a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs any contract entered into by in while that order stands is null and void. In India the position is the same. Under the Roman Dutch Law however a contract made by a person declared by a competent court to be a lunatic and for whom curator has been appointed would be valid if it was made during a lucid interval….” – Justice Amarasekara
CASE NO: SC APPEAL NO. 69/12
Before : Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J Mahinda Samayawardhena, J
