M. F. Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the contesting parties as also the learned GA on merits. The appellants' learned advocate has seriously assailed the ground on which the learned single Judge has interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal and she points out that while it was quite true that a statement was made in the Form No. VII itself that the land owner was a lunatic, but this was no ground on which the documents which bear the signature of his wife who was a perfectly healthy person, would be discredited Mr. Sripathy, who represents the respondents submits that where there is an unequivocal admission that the land owner was a lunatic that no Court or Tribunal should have taken cognizance of any documents attributed to that person and that consequently the learned single Judge has held that once the document gets vitiated on this ground that the order Itself would have to go. In this regard what we need to take cognizance of is that this is not a case in which the document has been executed solely by the person who suffered the mental disability. Secondly, we also need to take note of the fact that it is well settled law that even in the case of persons suffering from mental disabilities, not only do they have their lucid moments but more importantly that they are capable of completely overcoming the disability. It is for this reason that even under the IPC the law prescribes that the person should have been incapable of exercising control over the faculties at the point of time when the offence has been committed. We do not have any clear cut indication as to what is the ground on which the owner was categorised as a lunatic and secondly, as to whether this disability continued for all time. We propose to however, overlook that ambiguity and to take note of another very important aspect viz., that the 3 disputed documents are countersigned by none other than the wife of the land owner who was in full possession of her faculties and who would not have signed the documents at that point of time if her husband was not a validly consenting party. In addition, it is brought to our notice that the documents also bear the signature of the sister and in this background, it would be incorrect for a Court in the absence of very very compelling evidence to the contrary to interfere with the validity of this document. While we have taken note of the fact that the respondent's learned counsel Mr. Sripathy has submitted that if the owner was a lunatic that no amount of counter signatures from other parties could cure that infirmity, have already dealt with the position regarding the mental condition of the owner about which we do not have any conclusive evidence and that is why, even assuming that the owner was temporarily or to some extent disabled the family members who are conscious of this position have offsets that handicap through their signatures. In totality, we find it impossible to uphold the finding of the learned single Judge that the Tribunal's order requires interference. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The order passed by the Tribunal is restored. The appeal succeeds. No order as to costs.