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. 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. Indian law has a different view than English law in this area. Under English law, a non-solid person is contractual, although the contract can be avoided after his election if he complies with the jurisdiction that he has not been able to understand the contract and the other party has been aware of it.

Under English law, the contract is therefore, once elected, not abounded. It will only be binding on him if he has confirmed it, Imperial Loan Co v. Stone ((1892) 1 QB 599 (CA)), in this case Lord Esher stated that a mentally disturbed person can only set aside a contract with a person with a healthy mind: “If a person enters into a contract and then asserts, that she was so insane that she did not know what he was doing, and the assertion proves that the treaty engages him in all respects, whether he is executed or executed as if he had been cleaned up in his work, unless he could prove that the person with whom he moved was so well aware of him that he could not understand it. What it was about. The position of English law is the same for drunks as it is for a person with a mental disorder; Such a contract is not igacht, but, at the choice of the person who entered into the contract in such a drunken state, it is not to be fulfilled that he does not know what he has done, and this fact is known to the other contractor, Surrey/. Gibson (1845) 13 M-W 623). Even under English law, a madman`s contract is not void.