JUDGMENT : A suit for specific performance of contract for sale was dismissed by the trial court on the sole ground that the defendant was mentally incapacitated at the time when the contract for sale was executed. The plaintiff came up in appeal against the said judgment and decree. 2. It is based on Exts.B1 to B4 series and the oral evidence of DW2 and DW3, the trial court found that the defendant was incapacitated due to unsoundness of mind at the time of alleged execution of Ext.A1 contract for sale, consequently, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the following questions came up for consideration : (1) What actually amounts to an unsound mind for the purpose of contracting (2) Does it mean complete mental impairment or legal insanity akin to that as embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (3) What would be the requirement pertaining to civil matters and (4) What is the difference in the legal position applicable to civil and criminal matters ? 3. The expression “unsoundness of mind” as incorporated under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the Contract Act is having different connotations. Its application and requirement are totally different. In order to bring out a case of insanity under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, there should be a total deprivation of mental ability to understand the consequences of his act at the time of commission of offence. The expression unsoundness of mind as embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code must be understood as of such a nature depriving the person from knowing the consequences of his act. Further, drunkenness/intoxication either by the use of alcohol or drugs cannot be brought under the purview of “unsoundness of mind” for the purpose of evading criminal liability based on the principle embodied under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. The requirement under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is the total impairment of mental capacity to know the nature of his act or that he is doing something wrong or contrary to law. To have the application of Section 84 or to claim its benefit, the person, who claims it, should prove not only “unsoundness of mind”, but also “the complete deprivation of knowing the consequences of his act” by reason of unsoundness of mind. To have the application of Section 84 or to claim its benefit, the person, who claims it, should prove not only “unsoundness of mind”, but also “the complete deprivation of knowing the consequences of his act” by reason of unsoundness of mind. A self induced mental impairment or unsoundness of mind due to intoxication cannot be brought under the purview of Section 84 IPC or the expression unsoundness of mind incorporated therein. Necessarily, the said expression should be understood not only based on the exception carved out under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, but also with the mandate under Sections 85 and 86 of IPC. In other words, a complete deprivation of knowing the consequences of his act due to some other reason such as self intoxication or intoxication by other means, though amounts to deprivation of knowing the consequence of his act, cannot be brought under the purview of Section 84 of the IPC. But a case of self induced mental incapacity is relevant in civil matters in the adjudication of validity of a contract, deed or actions, if any, done and hence, the expression “unsound mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act did not demand complete deprivation of mental ability or legal insanity. There is substantial change in the legal position as to what actually amounts to the expression “unsound mind” for the purpose of contracting, from that of the requirement under Section 84 of IPC. What governs the field pertaining to civil matters is the impairment of mental capacity or ability to form a rational judgment on the matters affecting his interest and as such, a mental aberration, if it is capable of affecting the ability to form a rational judgment on the matters affecting his interest is relevant under Section 12 of the Contract Act and would operate against the document and its validity. In short, it is not at all necessary to prove complete impairment or mental disability or insanity so as to bring the matter within the sweep of “unsoundness of mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act. In short, it is not at all necessary to prove complete impairment or mental disability or insanity so as to bring the matter within the sweep of “unsoundness of mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act. An impairment of mind though not complete or absolute would be sufficient so as to attract the application of Section 12 of the Contract Act and also the expression “unsoundness of mind” for the purpose of making a contract, if it is sufficient to impair the capacity to understand or to form a rational judgment on the matters affecting his interest. A mere aberration or impairment of mental condition, if it is to the extent of affecting his capacity to form a rational judgment pertaining to his interest would be sufficient requirement within the sweep of Section 12 of the Contract Act for the purpose of “contracting”. Necessarily, the expression “unsound mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act for the purpose of contracting shall not be understood as an absolute mental incapacity, mental ailment, lunacy or insanity. An aberration, impairment or mental imbalance capable of affecting the capacity to form a rational judgment on his interest would be sufficient so as to bring the matter within the sweep of “unsoundness of mind” as incorporated under Section 12 of the Contract Act. Hence, a case of intoxication would also fall under its sweep irrespective of whether it is self induced or not. The Apex Court in Sona Bala Bora and Others v. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee [2005) 4 SCC 501] had even accepted and applied an abnormal conduct shrouded with anger and enmity in the execution of a sale deed as a valid ground so as to take away the very validity of the said document and laid down the legal position distinguishing normality from that of abnormality within the sphere of what amounts to “unsoundness of mind” for the purpose of “contracting”, wherein it was held that when there was unrebutted evidence of an unnatural and inexplicable animosity on the part of the executant towards his wife and also an unnatural and inexplicable fixation on selling of all his properties, the executant was not capable of forming a rational judgment on his interest at the time of effecting the sale deed. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference : “25. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference : “25. No doubt the burden to prove or establish at least on a balance of probability that Bhogirath s action in executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent was the outcome of an unsound mind was on the appellants. But unrebutted evidence of an unnatural and inexplicable animosity towards his wife and children as well as of an unnatural and inexplicable fixation on selling of all his properties probabilises that the sale was effected by Bhogirath when he was incapable of rational behaviour. This was sufficient to discharge the appellants burden. The onus then shifted to the respondent to adduce evidence wither to show that the ostensibly irrational conduct of Bhogirath had a rational explanation or that the conveyance was executed by Bhogirath in a lucid interval. The respondent had, if his statement is to be accepted, a certificate of a doctor who had medically examined Bhogirath just before the conveyance was executed. The respondent did not seek to call the doctor or prove the certificate.” 4. The 2nd and 3rd part of Section 12 of the Contract Act also give support to what actually mean by “unsoundness of mind” for the purpose of contracting by specifying that (i) a person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind and (ii) a person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind, which really refers and stands for “lucid interval”. A documentation or an action taken during the “lucid interval” would stand valid, irrespective of whether the person is usually or occasionally of unsound mind. 5. Exts.B1 and B4 series are the prescriptions, but not pertaining to the relevant period in which Ext.A1 agreement was executed. Ext.A1 agreement is dated 16/12/2006. Ext.B3 is the certificate issued by DW2 doctor stating the ailment as posterior circulation stroke after surgery for the left atrial myxoma. It is further stated that recent neuro-psychological evaluation shows moderate to severe frontal impairment as well as temporal lobe impairment, based on which it is certified that he is likely to have poor judgment and is unlikely to be of sound mind with the present neuro-psychological deficit. 6. It is further stated that recent neuro-psychological evaluation shows moderate to severe frontal impairment as well as temporal lobe impairment, based on which it is certified that he is likely to have poor judgment and is unlikely to be of sound mind with the present neuro-psychological deficit. 6. Admittedly, it was issued by DW2 without referring any case records or treatment records. There is no reference to any case record or treatment records or any inpatient or outpatient treatment given to the defendant in Ext.B3 certificate. No treatment record or any scrap of paper was produced to show any treatment given to him for any kind of ailment. Admittedly, he had not undergone any inpatient treatment at any hospital or mental asylum. DW3 is the person, who conducted the alleged psychological evaluation of the defendant. He had not issued any certificate in that behalf. DW2 had not seen any case sheet pertaining to the mental or psychological evaluation done by DW3 on the defendant. It is found to be so unfortunate that DW2 had issued Ext.B3 certificate without referring to any treatment records or medical records. The period of treatment, if any, either as outpatient or inpatient, the doctor who treated the defendant or the hospital, wherein he had undergone treatment were put in total darkness. Further, the certificate did not say anything about the mental impairment, if any, or its period. Hence, the trial court ought not have relied on Ext.B3 certificate and the oral evidence tendered by DW2 and DW3. There is total failure on the part of the defendant to prove the alleged unsoundness of mind during the time when Ext.A1 agreement was executed. Hence, the decree and judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit cannot be sustained. 7. Yet another contention was also raised by the defendant based on Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. in view of the earlier suit instituted for injunction simplicitor, which was later on withdrawn by the plaintiff. But that suit admittedly was filed before the expiry of contractual period agreed into by the parties and before the commencement of cause of action for a suit for specific performance. Hence, there cannot be any application of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.. 8. But that suit admittedly was filed before the expiry of contractual period agreed into by the parties and before the commencement of cause of action for a suit for specific performance. Hence, there cannot be any application of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.. 8. Regarding the payment of advance amount, the only source of money claimed by the plaintiff is the sale consideration received by him by way of sale of another property owned by him under Ext.A2 sale deed. Going by Ext.A2 sale deed, it is clear that he had sold the property for a large amount of Rs.10 lakhs as on the date of Ext.A1 agreement and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given to the defendant by way of advance. But the balance sale consideration would come to Rs.18 lakhs and the plaintiff has to meet the stamp fee and the registration fee for getting a registered sale deed in performance of Ext.A1 contract, besides the liability to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.18 lakhs. He did not have any plausible or acceptable source of money for meeting the abovesaid requirement and no evidence was tendered in that behalf. Issuance of a demand notice and his presence in the Sub-Registrar office on the expiry of the date of the contract itself will not relieve him from the liability to prove the requirement under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that a new building was constructed over the property by spending more than Rs.25 lakhs and that he has no other property for his residence. The advance amount paid comes to only 1/10th of the consideration agreed. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, it is not fit to grant the same for the abovesaid reasons. The advance amount paid comes to only 1/10th of the consideration agreed. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, it is not fit to grant the same for the abovesaid reasons. By taking into consideration the legal position settled by this Court in Anappath Parakkattu Vasudevakurup and Others v. C. Haridasan ( 2021 (6) KHC 656 ) followed by the decision of the Apex Court in Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and Others (2001 KHC 1100 = AIR 2001 SC 1462 ) it is fit and proper to grant a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs instead of granting specific performance of the contract without the liability of payment of interest for a period of three months from today, besides a decree for recovery of advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of recovery, from the defendant. The appeal will stand allowed accordingly. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. A decree is granted for recovery of an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) without the liability of interest for a period of three months from today and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of its recovery and a decree for recovery of the advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of its recovery from the defendant and charged upon the plaint schedule property. No costs.