Figure: (a) A patient in an insane asylum who is in healthy-minded intervals may contract during those intervals. Under English law, persons identified as having an intellectual disability are protected against the conclusion of contracts. Now the question arises as to who does not have the capacity in English law. A person under English law does not have the capacity to act on a matter if, at the time of the facts, he or she is unable to make a decision on the matter because of an alteration or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. It does not matter whether the impairment or disruption is permanent or temporary. A person may not be declared incapacitated solely on the basis of his or her age or appearance or on the basis of assumptions arising from his or her conduct. A person is considered incapable of making decisions for himself if he does not understand the information relevant to the decision, retains this information, uses this information for decision-making or communicates his decision through conversations, sign language or other means. A person is not declared unfit solely because he or she is able to retain information relevant to a decision for a short period of time, in this case information, including information on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision in one way or another or on the non-execution of the decision. A person is said to be in good sense for the purposes of entering into a contract if, at the time of its conclusion, he is able to understand it and form a rational judgment about its impact on his interests.
In Indian Singh v Parmeshwardhari Singh (AIR 1957 Pat 491), it was agreed to sell a property worth about Rs 25,000 per person for Rs 7,000. His mother proved that he was a born idiot who was unable to understand the transaction. The court cancelled the sale. The court noted: ”Under Article 12, the person entering into a contract must be a person who understands what he is doing and who is able to judge from a rational judgment whether what he will do is in his interest or not. The crucial point is therefore whether he concludes the contract after having understood it and in relation to his interest. This does not necessarily mean that a man has to suffer from madness to prevent him from signing a contract. A person may behave normally, but at the same time, he may not be able to form his own judgment. In the present case, (he) was not in a position to exercise his own judgment. On the other hand, under Indian law, a person with an unhealthy mind, if he is in a state of insensitivity, is not able to enter into contracts. The consent of a person with an unhealthy mind is void, Amina Bibi v. Saiyan Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 all 748). However, a person who is generally sane, but sometimes unhealthy, cannot enter into the contract if he is of an unhealthy mind, while a person who is usually of an unhealthy mind but sometimes becomes healthy can contract at these intervals when he is healthy.
In the case of Nilima Ghosh v. Harjeet Kaur (AIR 2011 Del 104) it was discussed that the most important thing for the annulment of an agreement is whether the person concerned suffered from an intellectual disability at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. (b) A healthy person suffering from delirium fever or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the terms of a contract or form a rational judgment about its impact on his interests cannot contract as long as this delirium or drunkenness persists. A person who is usually of an unhealthy mind, but sometimes of a healthy mind, can make a contract if he is of sound mind. Through this research, it is found that Indian contract law is heavily borrowed from its English counterpart, but the two differ in some respects, and the English model seems to have a broader scope than its Indian counterpart. According to article 12: A person is considered to be in good health for the purposes of entering into a contract if, at the time of its conclusion, he is able to understand it and form a rational judgment on its impact on his interests. A person who is usually of an unhealthy mind, but sometimes of a healthy mind, can make a contract if he is of sound mind. A person who is generally sane, but sometimes unhealthy, cannot enter into a contract if he is of an unhealthy mind. Indian contract law also treats a drunk person in the same way as a person with an unhealthy mind.
In Ashfaq Qureshi v. Aysha Qureshi (Nivedita Yadav) (AIR 2010 chh 58), where a Hindu girl was married to a Muslim man, the girl filed a lawsuit on the grounds that she was not in his favor because she was intoxicated at the time of the events and was unaware of the ongoing conversion and Nikah`s ceremony. And also that she had not lived with this man for a single day. She proved all the facts mentioned and the marriage was therefore annulled because she was drunk, so she was unable to make a decision and form a rational judgment regarding her interests. Let us now turn to the definition of common sense in relation to Indian contract law. Section 12 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 states that a person has a clear mind for entering into a contract if, at the time he enters into it, he is able to understand it and form a rational judgment on its impact on his interests. In Kanhaiyalal v Harsing Laxman Wanjari (AIR 1944 Nag 232), it was found that the mere weakness of the mind is not a sounding of the mind. Mental disability, which occurs for any reason, deprives a person not only of a full understanding of the transaction, but also of the awareness that he does not understand it. So a person with an unhealthy mind is not necessarily crazy. It is sufficient that the person is not able to assess the consequences of his actions. In inder Singh v.
. . . . . .