KARTAR SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CROSS Appeals, F.A.O. Nos. 102 and 103 of 1969, have been filed against an order passed by the District Judge, Ferozepore on 19th May, 1969 under Sections 62 and 67 of the Indian Lunacy Act (No. 4 of 1912).

(2.) BY the impugned order, Kartar Singh who is appellant in F.A.O. No lu2 of 1969 and respondent in F.A.O. No. 103 of 1969 has been declared to be a person of unsound mind and unfit to control and manage his property. This order was passed on the application of his adopted son Amarjit Singh, respondent/appellant. Amarjit Singh was a minor when he had filed this application in 1961 and his natural father Gujjar Singh had acted as his next friend.

(3.) THE opinion of the two doctors finds further corroboration from the fact that there is no evidence on record that before or after the filing of this application by his adopted son, the patient could be taken advantage of or duped into making any wasteful transfers of his property even though it was being said that there were persons out to gobble up his estate. There is no evidence of any mismanagement of his estate by the patient under observation. The medical evidence is that the patient required some sympathetic treatment and looking alter. If he could not get this sympathy and care from his adopted son or the latter's natural relations he would naturally have to turn to a stranger for sympathy. It is not every slight mental sub -normality which would justify a person being deprived of the control and management of his affairs and property. It can be that a person suffering from a slight mental or physical disability develops a complex which hinders normal behaviour in an unnatural atmosphere prevailing inside a court room Two doctors who had the patience to observe the conduct and behaviour of the patient, for a number of days at a time, had found tint in natural environment, the patient could be depended upon to look after not only himself but also his property. Tie District Judge had dismissed the petition in the first instance on the basis of the medical evidence of Dr. Vidya Sagar The learned District Judge who has passed the order now under appeal may appear to have stultified himself when he says at one place that the case is not of mental weakness or intellectual imbecility or of absence of competence to manage the estate. The finding given a little further on, however, is that Kartar Singh is a case of unsoundness of mind and is unable to manage his estate, though not his person One can very well believe that one's natural instincts of self -preservation may enable him to look after his own person and that the capacity to manage his property may call for a little higher order of intelligence and that a person could nit be left to depend solely on his natural instincts while managing an extensive estate simply because he can look after himself. We cannot, however, come to any such conclusion in the present case in view of the considered pinions of two qualified doctors who are experts in the line. It is not easily possible to lay down any nor nil mental standards to which everyone could strictly conform A slight aberration would be found here and there in every case but that would not by itself be a ground for declaring a person to be a lunatic. It has been observed amongst other things by the Letters Patent Bench in the remand older dated 25th July, 19S8 that the declaration of a parson at a lunatic or as an idiot and an appointment of guardian for him is serious matter involving grave consequences and that such a declaration can be made only on proper evidence.