BHAOORAO Vs. CHANDRABHAGABAI W/O. PANDURANG PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 4th May 1943 passed by Mr. J.R. Mudholkar, District Judge, Wardha, in lunacy case No. 4 of 1927.

(2.) ONE Pandurang Patil of Karla, Tahsil and District Wardha, was a lunatic, and Mr. R.S. Khankhoje, Pleader, Wardha, was appointed manager of his property. This Pandurang had a son by name Dada alias Madhorao, and two wives Chandrabhagabai and Bhimabai. While the matter was pending before the District Judge, the property belonging to the joint family was partitioned, the son receiving a separate half share in the property. After the death of Pandurang, the Manager Mr. Khankhoje applied to the Court that since Pandurang had died the property be handed over to the lawful heirs. Notice of this application was issued to Dada but he also died before he appeared in Court. The present dispute is between the widows of Pandurang on the one hand and the sons of Dada on the other about the ownership of the property.

(3.) IT is contended by the respondents that no appeal lies against such an order and the present appeal must be rejected. There is no provision in chap. 5, Lunacy Act, for the removal of a guardian or manager of a lunatic when the lunatic dies. In this respect, the provisions of the Lunacy Act resemble those of the Guardians and Wards Act. But a manager can continue only so long as the lunatic is alive. When the lunatic dies, the lunacy jurisdiction comes to an end and the Court must pass some order about the property in the hands of the manager. If the title to the property be in dispute, the Court may either decide the issue or ask the manager to file an interpleader suit. But whichever course is followed, the order of the Court will be referable to the jurisdiction exercised over the property of the lunatic under Chap. 5 and the order must be deemed to be an order under that Chapter. Under Section 88, Lunacy Act, an appeal lies against an order made under Chap. 5 of the Act. Section 83, Lunacy Act, is different from Section 47, Guardians and Wards Act., In the latter Act only orders passed under certain sections of the Act are appealable. Section 83, Lunacy Act, does not enumerate the orders which alone are appealable but makes all orders passed under Chap. 5 appeal-able to the High Court. In our opinion the present order of the District Judge is an order under chap. 5, Lunacy Act, and is, therefore, appealable.