The burden of proof rests with the party who asserts that it was not sound at the time of the contract. “According to this section, the person entering into the contract must be a person who understands what he is doing and is able to make a rational judgment as to whether or not what he or she will do is in their best interest. The crucial point is therefore whether he concludes the contract after understanding it and having decided to conclude this contract after a rational judgment on his interest…. This does not mean that man must suffer from madness to prevent him from entering into a contract. A person may behave normally after all appearances, but at the same time, he may not be able to have his own judgment on whether or not the action he has to take is in his best interest. An agreement that imposes an obligation on an unhealthy-minded person is a breach of respect. But an agreement that is made to benefit an unhealthy-minded person is a valid contract when a person provides a need to a person with an unhealthy mind or to someone who is who. it is legally obliged to provide support; the supplier is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the property needs of the person,of ouround spirit. On the other hand, under Indian law is a person with an unhealthy mind, if it is state of non-solidity is not competent to bear. The consent of a person of the unhealthy mind is invalid, Amina Bibi v. Saiyid Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 All 748). However, a person who is generally of a healthy mind but sometimes of unhealthy mind cannot make the contract if he is of unhealthy mind, while a person who is generally of unhealthy mind, but who is sometimes healthy, can tighten in these intervals when he is healthy. In Nilima Ghosh v. Harjeet Kaur (AIR 2011 del 104), the most important issue in the declaration of an agreement was whether the person in question was mentally disabled at the time the agreement was implemented.
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. The inconsolence of the mind can arise from madness, idiocy, drunkenness, etc. Contracts with these individuals are void if they are concluded at the time the person was in a non-solid mental state.