As has already been said, it is necessary, for a valid contract, for a valid contract, that each contracting party has a “healthy mind”. India`s contract law also treats a drunk person similar to a person with an unhealthy mind. At 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 complaint because she was not in her direction because she was intoxicated at the time material and was not aware of the conversion in class and the Nikah ceremony. And that she had not lived with this man for a single day. She proved all the facts stated, and the marriage was therefore annulled because he was drunk, so that he was not able to make a decision and make a rational judgment on his interest. An agreement reached by an unhealthy person is treated on the same basis as that of minors, and therefore an agreement by an unhealthy person is absolutely null and void as opposed to it, but it can benefit from it (Jugal Kishore vs. Cheddu). However, the ownership of a non-solid minded person is still responsible for the necessities of section 68 of the Act, to which he is bound by law. The strength of a person`s mind depends on two facts (i) his ability to understand the company concerned and (ii) his ability to make a rational judgment on his or her impact on his or her interests. (para.
12) When we learn something new, the first question that comes to mind is why we need it and how applicabilic it is in our daily lives. So before we discuss our subject, we need to know the purpose of the treaty. The fundamental objective of contract law is to create a framework in which individuals can freely conclude. The word “free” means that there should be full and free consent of the parties. Consent can only be free if it is rational and voluntary. Reasonable consent can only be granted if a person is healthy. The author in this article will attempt to make an analysis of the role of the insolidity of the mind in the case of a treaty using laws, jurisprudence and judgments with regard to English and Indian law. In all cases, the presumption is primarily for the presumption, but the existence or absence of him at the time of awarding the contract is in all cases a question of fact. It does not matter whether the person was delusional at a prior time or post office after the contract was entered into, except that it is likely that a suspicion of the likelihood of such a disorder at the time of the formation of the contract, M`Adam v. Walker (1813) 1 Dow 148 (HL)).
The burden of proof of madness rests with the person who affirms it, Mahomed Yakub v. Abdul Quddus (AIR 1923 Pat 18717). In Lakshmi v. Ajay Kumar (AIR 2006 P-H 77), it was found that it was necessary to prove that the place of madness was at the time of the contract. In Mohanlal Madangopal Marwadi v. Sadasheo Sonak (AIR 1941 Nag 251), it was found that where a person is generally of an unhealthy mind, the weight of evidence that he was healthy at that time is to the person who confirms it. While in the case where a person is generally in a healthy state of mind is the burden of proof that he was in a state of inconsistency of mind, lies on the person who is in a state of validity of the contract. However, in the event of drunkenness or other reasons, it is up to the party who sets up this disability to prove that it existed at the time of the contract, and it must be proven that the party was so drunk that it was not able to understand the importance and effects of an agreement, and also, under English law, that the other party was aware of its condition.