THATHUNNI MOOPPIL NAYAR Vs. KOCHUNNI NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the respondent in O. P. 31/57, District Court, Palghat, against the order dated 9th August 1957. O. P. 31/57 was an application by the respondent herein for directing an inquisition under the Indian Lunacy Act -- Central Act IV of 1912 and for passing necessary orders to ascertain whether the appellant is not a person of unsound mind and as such incapable of managing himself and his affairs.

(2.) In brief, the allegations in the original petition were that the appellant is the seniormost male member in the Mannarghat Nair family and Is the holder of the Sthanom known as Mannarghat Mooppil Nair. The applicant claimed to be an Anandravan and the third member of the Swaroopam. The appellant was alleged to be imbecile and deranged in mind and that he has become incapable of managing his affairs on account of the unsoundness of mind. The appellant was further alleged to be unable to understand things or talk coherently and also as having lost his memory.

(3.) The appellant has filed a counter affidavit and is contesting the said application under the Lunacy Act. He has stated in his counter affidavit that he is the holder of the Mannarghat Mooppil Sthanom which is a very ancient Sthanom with separate properties, separate assessments and separate management. It is also stated that the income of this Sthanom is at the absolute disposal of the appellant which he is entitled to appropriate as he pleases. The allegations of being imbecile or of unsound mind are being hotly contested by the appellant. He has stated that having due regard to his age, he was perfectly healthy and physically and mentally fit. The right to take proceedings against him under the Indian Lunacy Act is also challenged. It is further stated that these are all only attempts to coerce the appellant to recognise some right in others in the properties of the Sthanom. A suit, O. S. 65/1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ottappalam has been filed by another party for partition of the properties basing some rights on Madras Act XXII of 1955 and that suit has been engineered by the respondent. Proceedings taken under the Lunacy Act are all only with a view to coerce the appellant to recognise some right in the plaintiff in the said suit and also the petitioner in this Original Petition.