S BASAVARAJ Vs. V N ADILAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises an extremely interesting but equally important point of law which can very briefly be summarised in the following terms:

(2.) WHERE a contract executed by a party who claims to have done it under the influence of alcohol or more correctly, where a party sets up the defence that he is addicted to the consumption of alcohol whether it is a sufficient ground to avoid the contract having regard to the principle embodied in Section 12 of the Contract Act.

(3.) FACTUALLY, the dispute is within a narrow compass. Insofar as the appellant, a one time Doctor who appears to have concentrated more on the consumption of alcohol than his medical practice contends that, he agreed to sell a small house property to the plaintiff by agreement dated 25-6-1984. The agreement is not registered and it is the plaintiffs case that the defendant used to borrow small amounts of money from him from time to time and that he had paid an advance to the defendant against the consideration which was to be adjusted when the transaction finally took place. The amount under this head aggregates to Rs. 2,300/-, but we are not much concerned with that aspect of the matter. It is the plaintiffs case that the defendant was avoiding to complete the transaction for which reason he served a notice on the defendant calling upon him to accept the balance consideration and complete the same. The notice was not replied, nor did the defendant comply, which was why the suit for specific performance was filed. A few dates are relevant. The time for completion of the sale was upto October 1984. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant on 20-9-1984 and instituted the suit on 5-11-1984. It is alleged that the defendant had in the meanwhile, executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of his minor children in respect of certain properties including the present one on 15-1-1984.