NAGAHIA SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two appeals (F.A.O. No. 126 of 1963 and F.A.O. No. 181 of 1963) because they both arise out of the same order and have indeed been referred to larger Bench by a learned Single Judge by the same referring order.

(2.) THE reference has been necessitated because a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Sonabati Debi v. Narayan Chandra Upadhya, A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 423, has placed a more liberal interpretation on the word "lunatic" as defined in Section 3(5) of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (hereinafter called the Act) than the Andhra Pradesh High Court did in Ganga Bhayanamma v. Somaraju : A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 938. The learned Single Judge was apparently inclined to the view adopted by the Andhra High Court but considered it more desirable to have the matter considered by a larger Bench.

(3.) CONSIDERING the case before the Court, the Bench felt that the mental condition of the young man before it had obviously been seriously weakened and it would, therefore, be an act of cruelty to him to allow him to move about and dispose of his property at his own will and pleasure. It was with this approach that the High Court affirmed the order of the learned District Judge. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Subba Rao, C.J. and Satyanarayna Raju, J.) in Ganga Bhavanamma's case speaking through the Chief Justice expressed itself thus: