Agreement Of Unsound Mind
Let us now turn to the definition of the healthy mind with regard to contract law in India. According to Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act,1872, a person must be in good health for contracting purposes if he or she is able to understand it at the time of his contract and make a rational judgment about its impact on his or her interests. In kanhaiyalal v. Harsing Laxman Vaniari (AIR 1944 Nag 232) was found that the weakness of the mind is not disolidaed. The psychic disability that arises for some reason deprives a person not only of the full understanding of the transaction, but also of the consciousness that he does not understand. So a person with an unhealthy mind is not necessarily a madman. It is sufficient that the person is not able to assess the consequences of his or her actions. In Inder Singh v. Parmeshwardhari Singh (AIR 1957 Pat 491), Justice Sinha explained the effect of section 12 in the following passage: In all cases, the presumption is favourable at the end, but the existence or absence of it at the time of contracting is a question of fact in all cases. It does not matter whether the person was delusional at a prior time or post office after the contract was entered into, except that it is likely that a suspicion of the likelihood of such a disorder at the time of the formation of the contract, M`Adam v.
Walker (1813) 1 Dow 148 (HL)). The burden of proof of madness rests with the person who affirms it, Mahomed Yakub v. Abdul Quddus (AIR 1923 Pat 18717). In Lakshmi v. Ajay Kumar (AIR 2006 P-H 77), it was found that it was necessary to prove that the place of madness was at the time of the contract. In Mohanlal Madangopal Marwadi v. Sadasheo Sonak (AIR 1941 Nag 251), it was found that where a person is generally of an unhealthy mind, the weight of evidence that he was healthy at that time is to the person who confirms it. While in the case where a person is generally in a healthy state of mind is the burden of proof that he was in a state of inconsistency of mind, lies on the person who is in a state of validity of the contract. However, in the event of drunkenness or other reasons, it is up to the party who sets up this disability to prove that it existed at the time of the contract, and it must be proven that the party was so drunk that it was not able to understand the importance and effects of an agreement, and also, under English law, that the other party was aware of its condition. Indian law has a different view than English law in this area. Under English law, a non-solid person is contractual, although the contract can be avoided after his election if he complies with the jurisdiction that he has not been able to understand the contract and the other party has been aware of it.
Under English law, the contract is therefore, once elected, not abounded. It will only be binding on him if he has confirmed it, Imperial Loan Co v. Stone ((1892) 1 QB 599 (CA)), in this case Lord Esher stated that a mentally disturbed person can only set aside a contract with a person with a healthy mind: “If a person enters into a contract and then asserts, that she was so insane that she did not know what he was doing, and the assertion proves that the treaty engages him in all respects, whether he is executed or executed as if he had been cleaned up in his work, unless he could prove that the person with whom he moved was so well aware of him that he could not understand it. What it was about. The position of English law is the same for drunks as it is for a person with a mental disorder; Such a contract is not igacht, but, at the choice of the person who entered into the contract in such a drunken state, it is not to be fulfilled that he does not know what he has done, and this fact is known to the other contractor, Surrey/.