Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY, J. Defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants. Respondent no.1 and Raj Kumar filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed by them on 18.12.1965 in favour of the appellants were void. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. Admittedly the property in suit at a point of time belonged to respondent no.1 and Raj Kumar. If is also submitted that Raj Kumar was brother of Kailash who was husband of respondent no. 1. According to the plain Kailash was a lunatic. Raj Kumar, original plaintiff no. 2, had also become a lunatic since about the middle of 1965. As the male members of the family of the Plaintiffs happened to be mentally deranged respondent no. 1 had to rely upon appellants family for looking after her family affairs and she had implicit confidence on them. In December, 1965 defendant no.3 who was original appellate No. 3 informed respondent no.1 that he had spent about Rs 1,000/- for the treatment of mental ailment of Raj Kumar while the latter was in Kanke mental hospital. Defendant no. 3 demanded that amount respondent No.1 was unable to pay that amount immediately and, therefore, she suggested that the would execute un usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant no.3 for the said amount Defendant no. 3 suggested to respondent no.1 that Raj Kumar should also join in the document. Both respondent no.1 and Raj Kumar were brought to the Sub-Registry and there the thumb impression of respondent no. 1 and signature of Raj Kumar were taken on stamps and cartridge papers. They were also made to appear before the Sub-Registrar where also they were required to put their thumb marks and signatures. Later respondent no.1, however, arranged Rs. 1,000/- and asked defendant no. 3 to accept the amount and return the mortgage bond but the latter showed reluctance. Respondent no.1 therefore became suspicious and learnt that she and Raj Kumar were made to execute 5 sale deeds in respect of the property in suit in favour of the appellants. The grounds on which the validity of the Side deeds were challenged in the plaint were that respondent no. 1 was a pardanashin lady and the instruments were never read over and explained to her. The grounds on which the validity of the Side deeds were challenged in the plaint were that respondent no. 1 was a pardanashin lady and the instruments were never read over and explained to her. Raj Kumar was incapable of understanding the implications as to what he was doing. The instruments were not executed within the meaning of law either by the respondent no.1 or Raj Kumar. The consideration money so covered by the instruments was not paid. 3. Defendant nos. 10 to 13 were the daughters of respondent no. 1 but after the death of Raj Kumar and also the death of his widow they were transposed as plaintiffs. 4. The main written statement was filed by defendants 3 and 5 which was adopted by the other contesting defendants. In the written statement the fact that respondent no.1 was Pardanshin and illiterate lady were not denied. It was stated that Raj kuamr was not a lunatic and he was managing the affairs for the family. The fact that respondent no.1 and Raj Kumar agreed to execute mortgage bonds and for that purpose they had come to the Registry was denied. It was asserted that both of them had agreed to transfer the suit property to the appellants and in pursuance of the same they executed the sale deeds. Respondent No.1 and Raj Kumar required money for treatment of Raj Kumar who was suffering from diabetes and other bodily ailments. The consideration money for the sale deeds was paid to the plaintiffs. No fraud was practiced on the plaintiffs and the sale deeds represented the actual slate of affairs. 5. The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record held that respondent no.1 was a pardanashin lady and was an illiterate. The contents of the sale deeds (Ext. 8 to 8/D) were not read over and explained to her. In the eye of law she, therefore did not execute the sale deeds. Raj Kumar who was original plaintiff No. 2 was of unsound mind therefore, incapable of transferring any interest in the property in favour of the appellants. It also held that the consideration money covered by the sale deeds i.e. Rs 9000/- was not paid by the transferees. On the basis of these findings it held that the sale deeds were void and the appellants did not acquire any title under those sale deeds. It also held that the consideration money covered by the sale deeds i.e. Rs 9000/- was not paid by the transferees. On the basis of these findings it held that the sale deeds were void and the appellants did not acquire any title under those sale deeds. The lower appellate court confirmed all the findings of the trial Court. 6. It may be mentioned that a large number of evidence were brought on record by the parties and most of such evidence was irrelevant because it was beyond the pleadings of the parties. At the time of hearing of this appeal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties confined their submissions on the question, whether Ext/. 8 to 8/D were executed all understood in law by respondent no. 1 and whether Raj Kumar was of unsound mind. These refer to question of law no. 3 as slated in paragraph No.6 below. The other ground on which the maintainability of the suit was challenged so far Raj Kumar was concerned was with regard to Order XXXII rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, i.e. Question no. 1 as stated in paragraph on, 7 below. The appeal was confined to question nos. 1 and 3 and no. 2 did not arise in the appeal. 7. At the time of admission of the appeal no. 23.2.1981 the following substantial question of law were formulated: 1. Whether the suit by plaintiff, Rajmani Kuer as next friend of lunatic, Raj Kumar Singh with out previous adjudication about his insanity was maintainable ? 2. Whether forgery of a document could be proved only upon opinion of hand writing expert, without substantial corroboration by other evidence ? The other substantial question of law which arose in this appeal was : 3. Whether this Court in second appeal could interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below that the contents of Exts. 8 to 8/D were not read over and explained to respondent No. 1 and Raj Kumar was of unsound mind and, therefore, incapable of transferring any interest in the suit property in favour of the appellants ? 8. So far the third question of law is concerned Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that so far the allegation of the plaintiffs that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind on the date Exts. 8. So far the third question of law is concerned Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that so far the allegation of the plaintiffs that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind on the date Exts. 8 to 8/D were executed the finding recorded by the court below was not correct. He also urged that the finding recorded by the court below that the contents of Ext, 8 to 8/D were correct over and explained to respondent no.1, was also not correct to substantiate his submissions Mr. Debi Prasad placed in extenso the evidence both oral and documentary, on these two questions, so far the unsoundness of Raj Kumar is Concerned the court below has dealt with the same in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30. It is admitted (act that on 30th August. 1965 Raj Kumar was examined by a Psychiatrist fit the Mental Hospital, Kanke, as an outdoor patient and he was admitted as an indoor patient on Ist September, 1965 He remained in the hospital as an indoor patient and was discharged on 20th October, 1965. From this it would appear that the mental condition of Raj Kumar in September, and October, 1965 was such that he was required to be treated as an indoor petient in the mental hospital. From the perusal of the aforesaid three paragraphs of the judgment of the court below it appears that after referring to the oral and documentary evidence the court below held that on the date Exts. 8 to 8/D was executed by Raj Kumar he was of unsound mind, with reference to the reply given to some questions by P.W.2 in his cross-examination Mr. Devi Prasad submitted that the finding of the court below that Raj Kumar was of unsound mine was not correct. I am noticing the reply of P.W.2 which is as follows: At one place P.W.2 stated “that Raj Kumar correctly gave reply to the questions and his power of reasoning was normal.” 9. In spite of this mental state of affairs, Raj Kumar was admitted in the mental hospital. Therefore, on the basis of these answers of P.W.2 it cannot be said, the conclusion recorded by the court below was not correct. In Sree Minakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai Vs. In spite of this mental state of affairs, Raj Kumar was admitted in the mental hospital. Therefore, on the basis of these answers of P.W.2 it cannot be said, the conclusion recorded by the court below was not correct. In Sree Minakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras the Supreme Court held that in second a peal the High Court cannot interfere with a finding of fact on the ground that it was erroneous, however gross the error may be. In Madamanchi and another V. Muthaluru Bajjappa it was held that once it is shown that the evidence on which Courts of facts have acted was admissible and relevant, it will not be open to a party feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the courts of fact to contend before the High Court in second appeal that the said evidence is not sufficient to justify the finding or fact in question. It was not argued by Mr. Debi prasad that the finding recorded by the court below on this point was perverse. This Court, therefore, in second appeal cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the court below that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind on 18.12.1965 when he executed Exts. 8 to 8/D. 10. So far the finding recorded by the court below that those instruments were not read over and explained to respondent no.1 is concerned Mr. Debi Prasad submitted that in view of the evidence of the witnesses that the instruments were written on her instruction there was no question of reading over and explaining the contents to her. This question has been dealt with by the court below in paragraphs 32 to 35. As noticed above admittedly respondent no.1 was a pardanashin lady and was illiterate. From perusal of the judgment of the court below it appears that it noticed the oral evidence of the witnesses on this point and recoded a finding that the contents of Ext. 8 to 8/D were not read over and explained to respondent no.1 and she executed the same without understanding, the contents. This again is a finding of fact and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, which has been noticed above will apply with all force to this question also. 11. So far the first question is concerned it was submitted by Mr. This again is a finding of fact and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, which has been noticed above will apply with all force to this question also. 11. So far the first question is concerned it was submitted by Mr. Debi Prasad that in the cause title of the plaint it was stated that as Raj Kumar was of unsound mind the suit was being filed through his next friend. According to Mr. Debi Prasad since there was no prior adjudication that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind the court below ought to have made an enquiry about this fact as provided under Order XXXII rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him the court was required to make an independent enquiry whether Raj Kumar was incapable by reason of his mental infirmity in protecting his interest when suing. Reliance was placed by him in some decisions or Madras. Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts where it was held that if there was no prior adjudication that plaintiff who was major was of unsound mind, the court is required to make an enquiry in that regard and for that the person claiming to be the real friend must file an independent application. 12. Mr. N.K. Prasad in reply referred to the case of Smt. Godawari Devi V. Smt. Radha Pyari Devi and ors and submitted that it is not necessary to make such enquiry. He also referred to Chapalalamadugu Govindayyo & ors V. Sudhapalli Remamurthi & ors. and contended that sine the defendants appellants did not raise this objection by an independent application after the plaint was filed. I he trial court was not required to make any enquiry as envisaged in Order XXXII rule 15 or the Civil Procedure Code. So far case of Smt. Godawari Devi. V Smt. Radha Pyari Devi (supra) was concerned the Bench was dealing with a case where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff was of unsound mind and in that context it was observed that the issue whether the plaintiff was of unsound mind was between the court and the party concerned and not between the parties themselves. The defendant had no locus standi to raise that question. That decision, therefore, does not help Mr. N.K. Prasad. The defendant had no locus standi to raise that question. That decision, therefore, does not help Mr. N.K. Prasad. In paragraph 7 of the Judgment it was said that if the mental infirmity is brought on the filed by a party himself and if it is contested the court must go into it. Admittedly in the present case it was stated in the plaint that Raj Kumar (plaintiff No. 2) was of unsound mind and was incapable of protecting his interest when suing. The suit was instituted in his name by his next friend. However this fact of unsoundness for the first time was challenged by the appellant in the Court below which recorded its finding in paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment. It negatived the contention of the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not agitate the matter in the trial court. 13. From rule 15 it goes not appear that the court after presentation on of a plaint, where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs is described as of unsound mind, is required to make an elaborate enquiry about that fact before acceptance of the plaint or before accepting the factum of unsoundness of the plaintiff. The Act, that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind was asserted on oath in the plaint. That was sufficient for the court to admit the plaint by accepting that fact. When the plaint was accepted and when summons were directed to be issued, in my opinion the court was satisfied about the fact that Raj Kumar was of unsound mind. In the written statement the appellants stated that Raj Kumar was never of unsound mind. No separate application was filed on their behalf in the trial court contesting the fact of unsoundness of Raj Kumar on the date the suit was filed, They never prayed for any enquiry into the matter to be held. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that in the facts of this case the trial court was not required to make any elaborate enquiry under Order XXXII rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first substantial question of law raised on behalf of the appellant must also be answered against them. 13. The result there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.