A District Judge has the discretion to dismiss a petition for an inquisition under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act in limine if he is satisfied that there is no prima facie case for ordering an inquisition.

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent is preferred against the Judgment of Krishna Rao, J. , in C. M. A. No. 340 of 1957. The facts of the case are as follows :- o. P. No. 46 of 1957 was filed by the petitioner therein against three respondents to the O. P. , under section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) praying to hold an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether the first respondent in the o. P. , Srimat Kilambi Venkata Rangacharyulu is of unsound mind and to appoint a manager to the estate of the first respondent. The petitioner in the O. P. claimed to be an agnatic relation of the first respondent. According to the allegations in the o. P. , the first respondent was married twice. The first wife having died in or about 1906, he married the sister of the second respondent. The petitioner was informed and believed the same to be true that the first respondent became a lunatic a short time before the death of his first wife or a very short time after her death and that he is incapable of managing his affairs ; but it is admitted in the O. P. that the first respondent is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to others. It is further alleged that respondents 2 and 3 were managing, the affairs of the first respondent and after the death of the second wife respondents 2 and 3 were trying to mismanage the estate for their own benefit and therefore it is necessary that an inquisition should be directed and a manager shall be appointed to the estate of the first respondent. The petitioner in the O. P. claimed that he would be the next heir of the first respondent and would inherit the first respondent s properties.

( 2 ) THE application was numbered as O. P. 46 of 1957 on 16th April, 1957 and notices were ordered to be served for hearing on 26th April, 1957. Meanwhile, i. e. , on 23rd April, 1957, the first respondent himself filed a counter denying that he was ever a lunatic and accepting that he had allowed his wife to manage his properties because he was religious-minded. He contended that it was not necessary to appoint a manager to manage the estate and prayed that the application may be dismissed.

( 3 ) HE also stated that he is an educated man and that he was 73 years old. He contended that the petitioner s family and his family were not on good terms for a long time and that the petition was not a bona fide one. Respondents 2 and 3 also stated that the first respondent was not a lunatic and that he was capable of managing his own affairs.

( 4 ) IT appears from the order of the learned District Judge that he directed the first respondent to appear before him and that the first respondent appeared before him on 27th April, 1957. The learned District Judge interrogated him and found him to be a perfectly sane person. The learned District Judge says in his order that the first respondent s answers to his interrogation showed that the first respondent was 73 years of age and that he had studied upto B. A. Junior in the Arts College, rajahmundry, and that he was mentally sound and capable of managing his own properties. The learned District Judge also stated that the first respondent was attending the Court on all subsequent adjournments and that in spite of his being 73 years old, he is also physically fit and does not appear to be weak or senile. After interviewing the first respondent in the manner above mentioned and after satisfying himself that he is not a lunatic, the learned District Judge by his order dated 15th July, 1957 dismissed the O. P. with costs of the first respondent. In his order, the learned District Judge stated that he was thoroughly satisfied after examining the first respondent that the latter is not at all a lunatic and that he appeared to him to be an educated and aged gentleman without any signs of idiocy or a person of unsound mind. He therefore held that there was no basis for the petition and that it was a frivo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document