Kadala Reddi and Another vs Narisi and Others

The effect of the Judge''s ruling is to deny justice to persona who may be entitled to sue the lunatic, but who, not being relatives, are unable to

get the lunatic adjudged to be such under the Act XXXV of 1858. This difficulty does not appear to have been present to the mind of the Court in

the case of Narayana v. Krishna ILR 8 Mad. 214 where it was assumed that any suitor could obtain an adjudication in lunacy as a matter of

course, although it had been pointed out in the case quoted by the Judge Subaya v. Buthaya ILR 6 Mad. 380 that only certain specified persons

could move in the matter. In the absence then of any provision in the CPC for the case of persons of unsound mind who have not been adjudged

to be so under the Act, we must adopt the rule which prevails in English Courts and provide for the protection of the lunatic defendant by the

appointment of a proper guardian ad litem, the right of suit against the lunatic being unquestionable. A similar course has been followed by the

Bombay and Allahabad High Courts Venkatramana Rambhat v. Timappa Devappa ILR 16 Bom. 132 Nabbu Khan v. Sita ILR 20 All. 2:

Paransukhram v. Bai Ladkor ILR 23. Bom. 653.

The decree of the lower Appellate Court is therefore reversed and the appeal remanded for disposal in due course. It does not appear whether

the District Munsif satisfied himself that the first defendant was a lunatic and approved of the proposed guardian ad litem as a fit and proper

person. If these things have not yet been done, they must now be done according to law. Costa in this Court will abide and follow the result.