Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"It is essential that the person filing a suit claiming himself/herself to be of unsound mind through his next friend has to be adjudged of the unsound mind, or the Court has to conduct an inquiry regarding the soundness of the mind." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a person cannot be presumed to be of unsound mind or incapable of protecting their interests merely due to hearing and speech disabilities.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that for a suit to be maintained through a "next friend" on grounds of mental infirmity, the court must first conduct a mandatory inquiry under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court emphasized that physical infirmity does not automatically translate to cognitive incompetence.

The legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Rumal Dei, challenged a gift deed dated November 28, 1989, executed in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff, who was approximately 80 years old and suffered from hearing and speech disabilities, claimed through a next friend that she was of unsound mind and incompetent to execute the document. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding that the gift deed was executed voluntarily and the donor was alert and oriented.

The primary question before the court was whether the courts below erred in concluding the donor was mentally sound despite her disabilities. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of a medical certificate issued by a surgical specialist and whether the mandatory procedure under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC was followed before allowing the suit via a next friend.

Mandatory Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC

The Court noted that the suit was filed through a next friend on the premise that the plaintiff was of unsound mind. However, the bench highlighted that Order 32 Rule 15 CPC specifically deals with two categories: persons already adjudged to be of unsound mind and those who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on inquiry to be incapable of protecting their interests. The court found that no such inquiry was conducted in this case.

"The court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind... even if a person is not so adjudged but is found by the court on inquiry to be incapable... an appropriate order thereunder can be passed."

Absence of Expert Evidence on Mental State

The Court observed that the plaintiff never appeared before the Trial Court, and no medical expert was examined by the plaintiff's side to prove cognitive disability. While witnesses for the plaintiff claimed she had a cognitive disability, the Court rejected these testimonies, noting that laypersons are not competent to depose regarding the mental faculties of an individual to that extent.

"The plaintiff never appeared before the Court, and no expert was examined to prove that the plaintiff was of unsound mind. The Court only issued the summons in routine without adjudicating the fact that the plaintiff was of unsound mind."

Physical Disability Does Not Equal Cognitive Failure

The bench distinguished between the inability to speak or hear and the inability to understand a legal transaction. It relied on the testimony of the Tehsildar and the scribe, who stated that the gift deed was read over and explained to the donor. The Court noted that even if the donor was hearing impaired, she could understand communications when spoken to loudly, as evidenced by a medical certificate.

"Evidence led by the defendant proved that Rumal Dei was hearing and speech impaired but not mentally challenged. She had executed the gift deed in her sound disposing mind, which was duly read over and explained to her."

Presumption of Validity for Registered Documents

The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of the Sub-Registrar (Tehsildar), who had made inquiries from the donor before registration. The Court held that the certification by a responsible officer that the deed was explained to the executant carries a presumption of correctness. It further noted that the witnesses produced by the defendants consistently corroborated each other regarding the donor's alert mental status.

"The Sub Registrar was the responsible officer, and his certification that the gift deed was read over and explained to the plaintiff has to be accepted as correct."

Competency of Medical Evidence

Addressing the challenge to a medical certificate issued by a Surgical Specialist rather than a Psychiatrist, the Court held that a medical professional, regardless of their specific specialization, is more competent than a layperson to observe and certify the general mental orientation and alertness of a patient. The certificate (Ex. DY) had categorized the donor as "alert and well-oriented," which the Court found persuasive.

"He is more competent than a layperson to depose about the mental conditions of a person, and the certificate cannot be discarded because he has no qualification regarding the mental faculties."

The High Court concluded that the appellants failed to prove that the donor was mentally challenged or incapable of executing the gift deed. Finding no perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming that the gift deed was a valid legal document.

Date of Decision: 18 May 2026