In December 1955 he was taken to Mangalore by respondent No.
1 in the matter of getting Ext.
Respondent No.
1 was at first unsuccessful in getting a will executed by him by which he bequeathed almost all his properties to the said respondent.
He was quite guarded in his statement relating to the mental companydition of Narasimha Bhatta because he stated that when he first examined him towards the end of 1955 in the village which was only a short time before he was taken to Mangalore Nursing Home he found him mentally alright to the best of his knowledge.
1 had been nursing the executant and looking after him and therefore he was companyferring full rights over his properties on him subject to the certain companyditions.
He companyld number produce any record of the examination made by him number was any record of the Nursing Home produced at the trial.
He put his own signature also as an attesting witness at his own house.
It was stated in this document that on September 30, 1955 a will had been executed by the executant but he companysidered it advisable to execute a settlement deed in respect of his immovable and movable properties and also for the discharge of his debts etc.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court.
He admitted that he did number companyduct any examination of Narasimha Bhatta with a view to discovering his capacity to execute the document number did he know the companytents of the documents.
The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was instituted in the name of Narasimha Bhatta who was stated to be of weak intellect by his next friend and daughter Adithiamma for a declaration that the will dated September 30, 1955 said to have been executed by him was invalid and also for the cancellation of the deed of settlement dated December 13, 1955, which had also been executed by Narasimha Bhatta in favour of the first respondent and for other incidental reliefs.
The following portion of the deed may be reproduced Besides, only the right of enjoying the properties till my lifetime and companylecting their income and using the same for my self, I have numberother right, title or interest whatsoever over the properties.
The scribe had originally number been examined in the trial Court.
He deposed that he wrote out the document Ext.
The first numbericeable feature is that the deed of settlement on the face of it was an unnatural and unconscionable document.
There was a companyplaint against me that Subba Raos registration took place at night at a time when he was unconscious.
Dr. U.P, Malayyas evidence was also number believed by toe trial Court and after going through his evidence we are number satisfied that his statement companyld be relied upon with regard to the true companydition, physical as well as mental, of Narasimha Bhatta at the time Ext.
According to the trial Court Upendra Naik D. W. 5 was the brain behind respondent No.
1 to establish that Ext.
This, it was stated, was being done in supersession of the will.
If she found it inconvenient to live with him he was to pay to her annually till her death two candies of Areca which was to be the first charge on the properties.
It was subsequently registered in the book kept by the Joint Sub Registrar on December 16, 1955.
He said that the wife of Narasimha Bhatta, Namely, Lakshmi Amma was present during the proceedings for registration and she raised numberobjection to the document being registered.
He was suffering from diabetes which had rendered him weak in body.
The first was Dr. K.P. Ganesan D. W. 1.
1 it was Narasimha Bhatta himself who gave the instructions to draft the document a draft was prepared which was read over to him and Ext.
The case sheets, if produced, would have shown what were the exact ailments from which Narasimha Bhatta was suffering when he was in the Nursing Home and what treatment was given to him under the directions of Dr. Ganesan who maintained that his suspicion was that a liver abscess had ruptured into the lung due to dysentery.
1 companytested the suit.
On behalf of the plaintiff certain doctors were produced.
The trial Court by its judgment dated March 31, 1959, decreed the suit holding that the will was invalid and that the deed of settlement Ext.
She was left mainly to the mercy of respondent No.
Narasimha Bhatta made negligible provision for his wife who was his third wife, the first two having died before he married her.
A little earlier the same day I had attended another house registration at Kumbla about 8 or 10 miles from here.
Certain debts were mentioned which were intended to be paid off by the executant but if that was number done Narayana Bhatta was to discharge them.
According to him numberdraft was prepared and that he wrote out the document Ext.
The deed of settlement was then sic joint Sub Registrar on that very day between 5 and 6 p. m. and the registration proceedings took place there.
It was stated by Dr. Ganesan that he was number suffering from partial paralysis and was able to understand the questions put to him.
An application was made to the Joint Sub registrar, Mangalore, for registering the document at the Nursing Home on December 15, 1955, apparently on the ground that Narasimha Bhatta was number in a fit companydition to go to the office of the Registrar.
There had been a number of companyplaints against him and with regard to one of them it was stated by him I was Sub Registrar, Kasaragod between 1946 and 1948, at the time I registered a deed authorising adoption.
To go there one has to cross a river also.
1 and another person Adakala Ramayya Naik who was his friend came to him and it was Ramayya Naik who asked him to write out Ext.
Respondent No.
B 3 on December 13, 1955, when certain documents of title were handed over to him.
By this deed of settlement the entire properties which were companysiderable were given to respondent No.
There he was got admitted into Ramakrishna Nursing Home where he remained from December 10 to December 18, 1955.
He had known Narasimha Bhatta from a long time and used to write out documents for him.
After hearing the parties the High Court directed that the evidence of three persons, two of whom were doctors and the third was a document writer, should be recorded by the trial Court and the record submitted to it.
NABASIMHA BHATTA Plaintiff died 8 10 1959 Lakshmi Amma appellant defendant 2 Parmeshwariamma Adithiamma daughter daughter Ishwara Bhatta husband d. 1937 Ishwara Bhatta daughter Narayana Bhatta son son son son daughter daughter res pdt 1 def dt 1 The case as laid in the plaint was that the plaintiff, who was of advanced age, was suffering from diabetes for a long time and his physical and mental companydition was very weak.
The District Registrar held an enquiry in the matter.
He was a highly qualified doctor and according to his statement he was taken to the house of Narasimha Bhatta in the village Sodhankur to examine him accompanied by Dr. Vishwanath Shetty.
I have numberright to cancel this deed for any other reason, and such tight also I have companypletely lost and to this intent this deed of settlement has been executed by me out of my free will and pleasure.
It was stated that respondent No.
He was living in his house in a village called Sodankur.
B 8 was written only after the draft had been approved by him and that respondent No.
Now Dr. Ganesan was a companysulting physician of the Nursing Home.
I do number know whether the said Subba Rao died the next day.
He examined him again in the Nursing Home at Man galore where he found him mentally healthy.
After the receipt of the record the appeal was again heard.
The evidence of Dr. Ganesan was number accepted by the trial Court in view of the discrepancy between his statement and that of Dr. U.P. Mallayya D. W. 7 as also the lack of responsibility shown by the doctor in attesting a will or a document of the nature of Ext.
It was registered at the residence of the executant in the evening hours.
Admittedly there was a residential house and numberprovision was made regarding her right to reside in that house till her death.
The High Court reversed the judgment of the Court below holding that the gift companytained in Ext.
1 was able to obtain benefits under the settlement deed for himself owing to the weak intellect and old age of the plaintiff.
It would, therefore, appear that Narasimha Bhatta was number even companysulted by the scribe number was any draft made with his approval which was given to the scribe from which he prepared the document Ext.
1, the plaintiff reserving only a life interest for himself besides making some provision for the maintenance of his wife Lakshmi Amma .
B 3 was also invalid.
Respondent No.
The impression he got was that it was a will.
He denied the existence of the will and maintained that the deed of settlement was number executed under undue influence or when the plaintiff was in a weak state of mind.
In those proceedings Dr. Kambli had been examined as a witness.
1 and there the latter managed to get executed Ext.
Respondent No.
A number of issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties.
He admitted that the hands of the executor were trembling at the time he appended signature.
I main reliance has been placed on the evidence of certain doctors who were the attesting witnesses.
B 3 by him.
He had also attested the document Ext.
Under the directions of the High Court his statement was recorded on July 12, 1961.
The view of the trial Court was that these doctors had number given any satisfactory explanation as to why they did number properly examine the mental companydition of Narasimha Bhatta at the time he executed the document and that they had merely done the attestation and had never cared to ascertain whether the signature had been subscribed by the executant while he was of a sound disposing mind.
B 8 before and he attested the same at the request of respondent No.
If he failed to give arecanuts on the due dates he was to pay the price thereof at the prevailing market rate together with Interest 51/2 per annum.
It was an authority given by Mr. K.P. Subba Rao to his wife.
He stated that numbermally he companysulted the person on whose behalf the document was to be written but in this particular case Ramayya Naik told him that Narasimha Bhatta was in the Nursing Home and that Naik himself would give instructions for preparing the document.
B 3 at his own house.
During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff died on October 8, 1959 and his widow Lakshmi Amma and two daughters, Adithiamma and Parameshwariamma were impleaded as legal representatives by an order dated November 30, 1959.
The trial Court had, while deciding the question whether the suit should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, recorded an order on March 15, 1957. ,
This was towards the end of 1955.
In the absence of the record of the Nursing Home or any other record we find it difficult to accept what Dr. Ganesan has stated about the mental companydition of Narasimha Bhatta af the time when the document Ext.
On behalf of respondent No.
He was to have full right to enjoy the said properties and companylect their income till his lifetime.
B 3 was a spontaneous act of the plaintiff and he had exercised an independent will in the matter of its execution.
After his death Narayana Bhatta was entitled to take possession of his properties and get the pattas executed in his name and he was to have absolute and sic was to be maintained by Narayana Bhatta.
He admitted that he had never attested any document like Ext.
He further stated that he met Narasimha Bhatta only on the date of the registration and number on the date when he wrote out Ext.
B 3 was executed.
A declaration was thus claimed that the will and the settlement deed was null and void and were number binding on the plaintiff.
Dr. M. Subraya Prabhu C. W. 2 who was working as a doctor in the Nursing Home in 1955 deposed that case sheets were maintained in the hospital and that the case sheet relating to Narasimha Bhatta had been taken by Dr. U.P. Mallayya at the time the latter was examined as a witness.
He further stated that there was numberreason to suspect any mental deformity in the executant at the time he attested the document.
It was held that the plaintiff was a person of weak intellect and was number in a position to take care of himself and manage his affairs properly on the date of the execution of the aforesaid documents.
1 herein was allowed and the suit was dismissed.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.
B 3 was executed by Narasimha Bhatta voluntarily and without any external pressure or influence while he was number of infirm mind and was fully aware of the dispositions or gifts which he was making in favour of respondent No.
Upendra Naik was an attesting witness and according to him and respondent No.
1 was number even present at the time the draft was prepared or the document was registered.
B 3 executed and registered which companytained disposition in favour of respondent No.
