Ganga Bhavanamma and Others vs Somaraju and Another

Subba Rao, C.J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed Against the Order of the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, in O. P. No. 59 of 1950 refusing toN direct an inquisition in the;-case of an alleged, lunatic

The Appellant filed an application undei, Sections 62 and 63 of the Indian Lunacy Act to adjudge! her deceased husband''s brother Narasimhachari as; a lunatic and to pass consequential orders for tig custody and for the management of his estate. Before the learned Judge, the Appellant has examined four witnesses. The substance of the evidence was that the alleged lunatic was unable to give proper answers to the questions put to,him, that be did not carry on his caste profession of goldsmith, and that he was deaf and unable to manage his affairs.

The learned Judge, not having been satisfied with their evidence particularly in view of their in-terestedncss in the Petitioner, interviewed the alleged lunatic and recorded the questions put to him and the answers given by him. He came to the conclusion that he was deaf and somewhat weak in body and intellect and that there was nothing to suggest that he was an idiot of a person of unsound mind. On that findjng, he held that no case had been made out for directing an inquisition under the Act. The Petitioner preferred this appeal against that Ordj "

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the term "unsound mind" in the Indian Luftaoy Act comprehends imbecility whether con- " genital "or arising from old age, and, therefore, even %q on the facts found by the learned Judge, he should have directed an inquisition.

To appreciate the contention, the relevant provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act (4 of 1912) may be read:

Section 3 (5): ''Lunatic'' means an idiot or person of unsound mind.

Section 62: Whenever any person not subject to tlie jurisdiction of any of the Courts mentioned in Section 37 is possessed of property and is alleged to be a lunatic, the District Court, within whose jurisdiction such person is residing may, upon application, by order direct an inquisiton for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs.

Section 65 (2): Upon the completion of the in-quisiticn, the Court shall determine whether the alleged lunatic is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs or may come te a special finding that such alleged lunatic is of unsound mind so as to be incapable of managing his affairs, but that he is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to Ors. .

Under these sections, the District Court may direct an inquisition, if a person is alleged to be a lunatic for the purpose of ascertaining whether suck person, is of unsound mind and is incapable of managing, himself and his affairs. If he directs an inquisition, he shall determine two questions whether the alleged lunatic is of "unsound mindi" and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs and (ii) whether, though he,is incapable of managing his affairs, he is capable of managing himself. Though the Act defines "lunatic'''' as an idiot or tit person of unsound mind, the said words have not been defined.

In Halsbury''s Laws of England, 2nd edition, Vol. 21, "unsoundness of mind" is defined rect of reason consisting either in its total or par-absence or in its perturbation. At page 273, and learned author divides persons of menial in-Iqapacity into three categories (i) idiots, that is, periods who were born insane (ii) lunatics, that is, persons who have become insane since birth and lunatics by their own act, for instance, drunkards. le Indian Lunacy Act comprehends the first two categories Of insanity. Tek Cliand J., in Tcka Devi p. Gopal Das, AIR 1950 Lah 289 (A), explains the one the relevant provisions of the Act, at page 291, as fellows:

Now in assuming jurisdiction under the Lunacy Act, the Court must, first of all, keep in view the ''distinction between mere weakness of intellect and if lunacy, as understood in the Act. In Section 3(5) a "lunatic'' is defined as meaning an idiot or a person ''of unsound mind and it is hardly necessary to point out Unit it is only with lunatics as drained above that the Act is concerned, it is, therefore, the duly pf the Court before proceeding further, to determine judicially whether the person alleged to be incapable of managing himself or his affairs is really A lunatic in this sense. Secondly, it must be remembered that, this finding has got very far-reaching consequences and be given after very great care and deliberation.....

This decision lays down that a Court has power to dismiss an application in liming after examining the parties and as a result of its personal interview with the alleged lunatic.

In Joshi Ram Krishan Vs. Mst. Rukmini Bai, (B), the Allahabad High Court defined "lunatic" at page 452:

The idea suggests some derangement of the mind, whatever be its degree and it is not to be confused with or taken as analogous to a mere mental weakness or lack of intelligence.

On the facts of that case, the learned Judges made the following observations:

If a man is able to understand and answer questions on various matters except those relating to, arithmetical calculations, lie cannot, in my opener, be regarded as mentally unsound although he would be held as having a weak or undeveloped mind.

But a more comprehensive meaning was given to the words "unsound mind" by Latham, J., in In re ; Cowasji Berarnji Lilaoovala (82) ILR 7 Bom 15 (C). After considering the case law on the subject, ha learned Judge concludes, at page 18:

I think I should put an unduly restricted meaning on the term unsound mind and moreover a mischievous: meaning tending greatly to lessen the usefulness of the Act, if I did not hold these words St'' to comprehend imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, as well as lunacy or mental alienation resulting from disease.

We find it difficult to accept the said definition. I -Though'' weak-minded people also may require the Assistance'' of Ors. and the protection of Courts, .to apply the Lunacy Act to such persons, is, in our fyiew, to go beyond the scope and purpose of the Act. If the Legislature intended to bring in persons weak intellect under the definition of a ''''lunatic"it would have said so in specific terms. It appears to us incongruous to style a; dull-witted man a "lunatic" either in its technical; or popular sense.

It will be seen from the aforesaid discussion of the case-law that a Court has power to dismiss an application in liming without directing inquisition. They also bring out the meaning of the words "idiot" and "unsoundness of mind". Both indicate an abnormal state of mind as distinguished from weakness of mind or senility following old age. A man of weak mental strength cannot be called an idiot or a man of unsound mind. The intellectual competency of the human mind is of varying N degrees. It fluctuates between brilliance and dullness. Sometimes in the same individual brilliance in one field surprisingly appears in juxtaposition with subnormal practical apprehension in an allied field. The Act is not intended to protect dull-witted people but only those who suffer from a mental disorder or derangement of the mind.

If the aforesaid principle is applied, it is not possible to hold in the present case that the first Respondent is a "lunatic'''' within the meaning of the Act. The learned Judge examined him a person and satisfied himself that he was only dull-witted. The evidence given by the alleged lunatic is generally cogent except in regard to a simple arithmetical problem and does not give the impression of an idiot or a man of unsound mind pouring out his disjointed ideas in a jumble of unintelligible words. The Judge, who has seen his demeanor and followed his answers, accepted him as a sane, though dull-witted man. After going through the evidence we agree with him.

The order of the lower Court is correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.