Scribd
Upload
5 views3 pages

Contract Assignment

The Supreme Court in 2023 SCMR 1339 addressed whether a sale deed could be invalidated due to the father's alleged unsound mind at execution, determining that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that unsoundness must be proven at the time of the contract and that paralysis alone does not imply mental incapacity. Additionally, the plaintiffs' failure to examine the medical attendant was deemed critical, as his testimony was necessary to substantiate their claims regarding the father's mental condition.

Uploaded by

talalsandhu25
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views3 pages

Contract Assignment

The Supreme Court in 2023 SCMR 1339 addressed whether a sale deed could be invalidated due to the father's alleged unsound mind at execution, determining that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that unsoundness must be proven at the time of the contract and that paralysis alone does not imply mental incapacity. Additionally, the plaintiffs' failure to examine the medical attendant was deemed critical, as his testimony was necessary to substantiate their claims regarding the father's mental condition.

Uploaded by

talalsandhu25
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL PUNJAB

ASSIGNMENT NO:2

COURSE ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

SECTION A3

SUBMITTED BY [Link] (0022)

SUBMITTED TO MAAM FAREEHA FAHAD


1. What was the main legal issue before the Supreme Court in 2023 SCMR
1339?

The main legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the registered sale deed and
exchange deed executed by the plaintiffs’ father could be declared invalid on the ground that he
was of unsound mind at the time of execution. The plaintiffs claimed that due to paralysis and
physical weakness, their father lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of
the transactions. The Court had to determine whether this plea of unsoundness of mind was
legally proved at the relevant time, i.e., when the documents were executed

2. On whom does the burden of proof lie when unsoundness of mind is


pleaded in a civil case?

When unsoundness of mind is pleaded in a civil case, the burden of proof lies squarely on the
person who raises such plea, in this case, the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that sanity is
presumed in law, and unsoundness of mind is an exception. Therefore, the party alleging mental
incapacity must not only plead it clearly but also prove it through cogent and reliable evidence. If
this burden is not discharged, the court cannot presume unsoundness of mind

3. At what point of time must unsoundness of mind be proved under sections


11 and 12 of the Contract Act, 1872?

Under sections 11 and 12 of the Contract Act, 1872, unsoundness of mind must be proved at the
exact time when the contract was executed. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is irrelevant
whether a person was ill before or after the transaction; what matters is whether the person was
capable of understanding the contract and forming a rational judgment at the moment of
execution. Since the plaintiffs failed to specify whether paralysis affected their father before or
after the execution of the documents, their plea failed

4. Does paralysis automatically render a person incapable of entering into a


valid contract?

No, paralysis does not automatically render a person incapable of entering into a valid contract.
The Supreme Court clearly held that paralysis may weaken a person physically, but it does not
necessarily impair mental capacity. For a contract to be invalid, it must be shown that paralysis
affected the person’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction. In the
present case, no evidence was produced to show that paralysis had affected the mental faculties
of the executant

5. Why was the non-examination of the medical attendant (Hakeem)


considered fatal to the plaintiffs’ case?

The non-examination of the medical attendant (Hakeem) was considered fatal because he was
the best and most reliable witness to prove the mental condition of the executant at the relevant
time. The plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father was under the treatment of a Hakeem,
yet they neither produced him as a witness nor gave any explanation for his absence. The
Supreme Court observed that testimony of close relatives is often interested and insufficient on
its own, whereas medical evidence carries greater probative value.

You might also like