SHASHI MUKHI CHOWDHARAIN Vs. NITAMBINI CHOWDHRAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application was made to the Zilla Judge, under Act XXXV of 1858, to make an order for the care of the estate of a lunatic, one Golakmani Chowdhrain, upon which application the Judge has directed the Collector of the district, under section 9 of the Act, to take charge of the estate. This appeal is on the part of one Nitambini Chowdhrain. She at first sight appears to have no interest whatever in the subject-matter of the application, inasmuch as she makes no claim to the guardianship of the lunatic in question, or to the charge of her estate. She, in short, denies that the lunatic has any estate whatever. It appears that this appellant came in to oppose the petition under Act XXXV, upon the ground that a schedule to the petition specified certain immoveable property as belonging to the lunatic, which property Nitambini declared to be at the time in her possession and enjoyment in succession to her deceased husband. That husband, it seems, claimed to be the adopted son of the late husband of Golakmani. A suit had been instituted by Sashi Mukhi, the petitioner in this case, and in that suit she had succeeded in having it declared that the adoption was invalid.

(2.) The person described as being the adopted son has since died, but it appears that, notwithstanding the decision as to his adoption, the property of the husband of Golakmani is still in the hands of Nitambini. Nitambini, therefore, called upon the Judge to decide whether the immoveable property specified was part of the estate of the alleged lunatic or no, and he decided that fact against her; and having so decided it, he made an order that the Collector should take possession of the property, and intimated that, in case of necessity, the Court would give its aid to enforce the order for possession thereof; and taking this in connection with the petition as to the immoveable property in question, it seems there is reason to suppose he intended to give possession of that immoveable property as the property of the lunatic.

(3.) This, no doubt, was going beyond the purview of the Act, and the appellant seems to be entitled to have that portion of the order set aside. At the same time it seems to me that the Judge would never have entered into this question at all, if it had not bean for the step taken by the appellant herself; and that, consequently, although she is entitled to have the Judge's order so far set right, it must be done at her cost, and she must pay her own costs of this appeal as well as in the Judge's Court. The Judge's order will be cub down to the appointment of the Collector to take charge of the estate of the lunatic, without specification of what that estate consists.