Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: S. 12

Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 12-Insanity-Burden of proof on party putting forward plea of insanity, normal presumption being of sanity.   Attorney-General v. Pernther (1779) 29 E R 632 not appli cable.   Mohanlal v. Vinayak 196 I C 661 ref. JUDGMENT   This appeal is by the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit for khas possession on partition of 42 cents of land under khatian No. 32 of Mouza Harishar and Elahabad.   Plaintiff's case is that he took dar-raiyati settlement of 52 cents of land from proforma defendant No. 3 by a dakhila dated the 13th of Agrahyan, 1346 B. S., and subse quently by executing a registered kabuliyat dated 23rd Agrahyan, 1346 B. S., and since then he has been possessing the same on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 6-8 per year. This land originally belonged to the father of proforma defendant No. 3 Indra Mohan and proforma defendant No. 4 Bhagaban, and Indra Mohan got 8 annas share of the disputed plots Nos. 92, 97, 103 and 105 of Mouza Harishar measuring 50 per cents and plots Nos. 3059 and 3060 of Mouza Elahabad, measuring 34 cents. At Harishar Mouza the plaintiff raised a hut, lived there for some time, and shifted to his new homestead. He had been growing vegetable and paddy in the nal lard of both the Mouzas Elahabad and Harishar through hired labourers. Proforma defendant No. 4 Bhagaban, the elder brother of Indra Mohan left for India after selling his property to Chandra Nath, father of defendant No. 1, by registered deed, Exts. A to A (1) (1), and after staying there for a few years has come back to resettle on the disputed home stead plots, and is creating trouble to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was obliged to file a criminal case against proforma defendant No. 4 Bhagaban for raising a but in plot No. 97, and in that criminal case Bhagaban was fined Rs. 50. Bhagaban, on account of transfer of his 8 annas share in the disputed land to Chandra Nath, father of defendant No. 1, had no right, title and interest in the disputed jama. Hence this suit filed by the plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds on declaration of his title to the extent of 8 annas shares in the disputed…