GANGA BHAVANAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. SOMARAJU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 to direct an inquisition in the case of an alleged lunatic

(2.) The appellant filed an application under Ss. 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 his 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 he 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 interestedness 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 finding, he held that no case had been made out for directing an inquisition under the Act. The petitioner preferred this appeal against that Order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the term "unsound mind" in the Indian Lunacy Act comprehends imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, and, therefore, even on the facts found by the learned Judge, he should have directed an inquisition.