SRIMATI ANILBALA CHOWDHURANI Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH SAHA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, to the District Judge of Pabna.

(2.) The jurisdiction of the High Court (i.e., Sections 37 and 62 of the Act) excludes the jurisdiction of the District Court and the question in the appeal, as in the Court of first instance, is whether the person alleged to be a lunatic, one Dhirendra Nath Shaha Chowdhuri, is a person subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta and, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Pabna.

(3.) The ancestors of the respondent Dhirendra were residents of Parsadanga in the District of Pabna. There was a separation in 1900 and at the partition which then took place, Gobinda, the grandfather of the respondents, Dhirendra and his brother Surendra, took no share in the family dwelling house, though he reserved for himself what is described as an Athohala of three rooms (a record room and two office rooms) for the purposes of an office or Cutchery. Gobinda then removed to his house at Halkhola in Calcutta, carried on business and acquired much property there. He died there without returning to Parsadanga or Pabna in the year 1913. Thus for the last 13 years of his life Gobinda was a permanent resident of Calcutta. His son Harendra, the father of the respondents, died there and his grandsons the respondents lived with him in Calcutta till his own death in 1913.