C M RAJU CHETTY Vs. OCRAJU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of Lakshmana Rao, J., upon an application by the Committees of the estate of one Maragadammal, a lunatic, to sanction certain items of expenditure incurred by them since their appointment for which the previous sanction of the Court had not beers obtained. The expenditure was sanctioned by our learned brother. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Alagappa who died in 1903 had a wife named Angammal who died in 1909. He had three daughters, Ammakannu, who married Manicka Chetty, Maragadammal, the lunatic and Panchaksharammal. Ammakannu died before Alagappa and after her death Maragadaammal was given in marriage to Manicka Chetty. This was in the lifetime of Alagappa. Ammakannu and Manicka Chetty had two children, namely, Balasundaram and Rajammal. Alagappa made a will leaving some of his property to the lunatic and in that will directed her to continue to live with Balasundaram who was then living and his widow Angammal, Panchaksharammal and Rajammal (Ammakannu's daughter) as one family. This the lunatic did. Angammal died, as already stated, in 1909 and thereafter the lunatic continued to live with the survivors of the family. Manicka died in 1913 and she then lived with his children Balasundaram and Rajammal and Panchaksharammal until Balasundaram's marriage when she was taken to live in his house. In 1910 Maragadammal was found to be a lunatic and Manicka Chetty, her husband, was appointed committee of her person and estate. The order of appointment has an important bearing on this matter. That order stated that the estate consisted of the property known as "Abbotsbury" and that the committee was empowered to apply its rent for its upkeep and the maintenance of the lunatic and her family. As before mentioned Manicka Chetty died in 1913 and his brother Govindarajulu Chetty applied to be appointed as committee. That application was opposed and the Official Trustee was appointed. He declined to act and by an order dated 20 January, 1914, the present Committees, the elder sister Panchaksharammal and O.C. Raju, the husband of Rajammal (the daughter of Manicka Chetty and Ammakannu) were appointed Committees of the estate and the powers given by the Lunacy (Supreme Courts) Act of 1858 were conferred upon them and they were directed to submit half-yearly accounts. Nothing wassaid regarding the maintenance of the lunatic or her family and the committees thought that the rents of "Abbotsbury" were to be applied therefor as before; and it cannot be said that they were unreasonable in so thinking. Most unfortunately the two committees did not file any accounts at all from the date of their appointment until the date of the present proceedings--a period of nearly 21 years. This failure on their part is sought to be excused on the ground of inexperience, O.C. Raju, the second committee being only 22 years of age on the date of his appointment. The failure to file accounts is undoubtedly most reprehensible particularly so because during the interval a large expenditure was incurred by the committee without the sanction of the Court having been obtained previously. The appellant here C.M. Raju is the husband of Chinnathayammal, one of the sisters of Alagappa and in 1934 he presented an application to the High Court asking for directions to the committees to file and pass their accounts and an enquiry as regards the management of the estate of the lunatic and charging the second committee with various acts, misfeasance and malfeasance and serious neglect of duty and stating that a sum of Rs. 31,715-13-7 ought to be surcharged against him and praying for his removal from office and on 3 May, 1934, an order was made directing the committees to file their accounts by 14 August, 1934 and get them passed. An account was filed accordingly on 14 August, 1934, relating to the period from 25 June, 1913 to 5 August, 1934. The accounts were gone into by the passing officer an order having been made previously on 3 May, 1934, by Stone, J., directing that the appellant was to have inspection of all accounts. According to the passing officer's report although an affidavit had been filed by the appellant objecting to the correctness of the entries in the accounts and to the propriety of the expenditure, after the items of receipts and disbursements were gone into with the vouchers in the presence of the appellant and his advocate the correctness of the accounts was not disputed but only the propriety of the expenditure was objected to. The passing officer allowed some of the expenditure incurred but disallowed the remainder which amounted to a considerable sum on the ground that it was beyond his province as passing officer to ascertain how far the expenditure was properly allowable and that the Court alone could sanction the expenditure having regard to the fact that it was for the benefit of persons other than the lunatic. He accordingly disallowed the following items of expenditure, viz., Balasundaram's account Rs. 7,411-8-9; maintenance Rs. 28,140-0-0; charities performed Rs. 956-0-0; presents to relations Rs. 1,027-4-9; miscellaneous items Rs. 3,953-4-0 making a total of Rs. 41,488-5-6. He also found that there was a balance in the committee's hands in addition to the expenditure disallowed of Rs. 4,683-8-6. Before us the objection to the expenditure under the heads of "charities performed", "presents to relations" and "miscellaneous items" was not pressed, the expenditure under the other two heads being objected to only. Lakshmana Rao, J., sanctioned the expenditure under all the before-mentioned heads although the sanction of the Court had not been obtained in the first instance; but he made no order as to costs, though we are informed that he allowed the appellant some costs out of the estate of the lunatic. In his order our learned brother says: The bona fides of the applicants who are managers without remuneration was not disputed nor was it seriously contended that the amount spent was excessive or unreasonable, and, as before stated, the accuracy of the accounts was admitted before the passing officer. Taking the amount spent on Balasundaram till 1923 and the maintenance of the lunatic and her household, Lakshmana Rao, J., applies the principles that the first care is the comfort of the lunatic who should have everything that his or her circumstances will allow and the next care is the household of the lunatic and states, that the final principle is that the Court should not refuse to do on behalf of the lunatic what the lunatic himself would probably have done. We are satisfied that the learned Judge has correctly stated the principles. In Darling, In re (1888) L.R. 39 Ch. D. 208, the head note of which reads as follows: It is not the duty of the Court to deal benevolently or charitably with the property of a lunatic, and applications for allowances out of the surplus income of a lunatic to poor collateral relations who have no legal claims upon him for provision are to be discouraged, and it was held that there being nothing to show that the lunatic would have done what the Court was asked to sanction, the mere fact that the collaterals were in humble circumstances and had difficulties in providing themselves with necessaries was not sufficient to justify the Court in granting the application and that it must be refused.

(3.) The principles upon which Courts should act are set out by Cotton, L.J., on p. 211; and it is stated by him that Courts sometimes make considerable allowances for persons who have legal claims upon a lunatic such as a son or a daughter and also for persons who have moral claims upon him and that the cases do show however that the Court has sometimes made an allowance to collaterals. He then states as follows: I pass over those cases in which an allowance has been made by the Court in favour of a person who is the next successor to the lunatic's estate, for it is the interest of every possessor of an estate that his successor should be educated and brought up in such a manner as to enable him to fulfil the duties attaching to the ownership of the estate, and where the successor is in such a position as not to be able to obtain an education suitable to his prospects, the Court will, no doubt, make an allowance, and sometimes has made a very considerable one. Here the lunatic had several cousins, who happen to be his next of kin, and while sane he made small allowances to some of them; and the Court, acting on the principle that the Court will do for the lunatic what the lunatic would have done himself if of sound mind, has continued these allowances. But we are now asked to sanction an increase of the allowance to some of these persons, and also to sanction further allowances to others of them. Now to make such an order would, in my opinion, be contrary to the principles n which the Court acts in administering the property of a lunatic.