The term "unsound mind" in the Indian Lunacy Act comprehends imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, but a man of weak mental strength cannot be called an idiot or a man of unsound mind.

SUBBA BAO, C.J. :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order of the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, in O. P. No. 59 of 1950 refusing to direct an inquisition in the case of an alleged lunatic

2. The appellant filed an application under Ss. 62 and 63 of the Indian Lunacy Act to adjudge her deceased husbands brother Narasimhachari as a lunatic and to pass consequential orders for his custody and for the management of his estate. Before the learned Judge, the appellant has examined four witnesses. The substance of the evidence was that the alleged lunatic was unable to give proper answers to the questions put to him, that he did not carry on his caste profession of goldsmith, and that he was deaf and unable to manage his affairs.

The learned Judge, not having been satisfied with their evidence particularly in view of their interestedness in the petitioner, interviewed the alleged lunatic and recorded the questions put to him and the answers given by him. He came to the conclusion that he was deaf and somewhat weak in body and intellect and that there was nothing to suggest that he was an idiot of a person of unsound mind. On that finding, he held that no case had been made out for directing an inquisition under the Act. The petitioner preferred this appeal against that Order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the term unsound mind in the Indian Lunacy Act comprehends imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, and, therefore, even on the facts found by the learned Judge, he should have directed an inquisition.

4. To appreciate the contention, the relevant provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act (4 of 1912) may be read :

"Section 3 (5) : Lunatic means an idiot or person of unsound mind.

Section 62 : Whenever any person not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Courts mentioned in S. 37 is possessed of property and is alleged to be a lunatic, the District Court, within whose jurisdiction such person is residing may, upon application, by order direct an inquisiton for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs.

Section 65 (2) : Upon the completion of the inquisition, the Court shall determine whether the alleged lunatic is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs or may come to a special finding that such alleged lunatic is of unsound mind so as to be incapable of managing his affairs, but that he is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to others."

5. Under these sections, the District Court may direct an inquisition, if a person is alleged to be a lunatic for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs. If he directs an inquisition, he shall determine two questions (1) whether the alleged lunatic is of unsound mind" and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs and (ii) whether, though he is incapable of managing his affairs, he is capable of managing himself. Though the Act defines lunatic as an idiot or a person of unsound mind, the said words have not been defined.

6. In Halsburys Laws of England, 2nd edition, Vol. 21, "unsoundness of mind" is defined as a defect of reason consisting either in its total or partial absence or in its perturbation. At page 273, the learned author divides persons of mental incapacity into three categories (i) idiots, that is, persons who were born insane (ii) lunatics, that is, persons who have become insane since birth and (iii) lunatics by their own act, for instance, drunkards. The Indian Lunacy Act comprehends the first two categories of insanity. Tek Chand J., in Teka Devi v. Gopal Das, AIR 1930 Lah 289 (A), explains the scope of the relevant provisions of the Act, at page 291, as follows :

"Now in assuming jurisdiction under the Lunacy Act, the Court must, first of all, keep in view the distinction between mere weakness of intellect and