G. LAKSHMI Vs. LALITHAMBAL AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent herein under Section 67 of the Lunacy Act for a declaration that Ramachandran is a lunatic and for appointment of a guardian both for his person and property. Ramachandran is one of the sons of the first respondent in the original petition. The first respondent had two other sons besides Ramachandran, by name Venkataraman and Krishnamurthy. The petitioner in the original petition is the wife of Venkataraman. The second respondent therein is one of the daughters of the first respondent. Originally, in the said petition, respondents 3 to 7 were impleaded as alienees and the banks in which the monies belonging to Ramachandran were deposited. During the pendency of the original petition, the first respondent, mother of Ramachandran died and her daughter, two sons and a grand -daughter were impleaded as her legal representatives. They were respondents 8 to 11 in the main original petition.

(2.) THE averment in the original petition was that Ramachandran was a lunatic for several years and the first respondent therein was looking after him. It was also stated that there were number of properties belonging to the lunatic besides deposits in banks. It was alleged that respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition were bent upon depriving the legal heirs of Ramachandran of their share in the properties after his demise and that the other sons of the first respondent were also colluding with them on a promise of illegal gratification. It was further alleged that the first respondent had completely secreted the movables of the lunatic and practically she was keeping the house of the lunatic vacant The immediate cause of action for the filing of the petition was stated to be alienations by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on the strength of a power of attorney obtained by them from Ramachandran. It was alleged that the properties were sold at a very low price. It was stated that Ramachandran could hot understand anything and it was necessary to appoint a guardian for his person and property.

(3.) THE Principal District Judge, Madurai, who heard the original petition, had Ramachandran examined by a medical practitioner and obtained a report as to his condition. The medical practitioner also gave evidence before the Court. Ramachandran was also questioned by the Court. The learned District Judge took the view that Ramachandran was a lunatic as defined by the Act and a guardian should be appointed for his person and property. The learned District Judge appointed the petitioner before him as guardian for the person and property of the lunatic.