JUDGMENT

Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting, C.J. - This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of the two Judges of a Division Court, who were equally divided in opinion, in the matter of an appeal u/s 83 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, from an order made by a District Court in a proceeding for judicial inquisition as to the alleged lunacy of one Dhirendra Nath Saha Chaudhuri. The District Court held that it had no jurisdiction u/s 62 to direct an inquisition. Mr. Justice Teunon has held that the view taken by the District Court is correct and that the proceedings should have been instituted u/s 37 on the Original Side of this Court, Mr. Justice Beachcroft has held, on the other hand, that the District Court had jurisdiction u/s 62 to entertain the application when made and should have exercised the powers vested in it. The solution of the question raised depends upon the true construction of the provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. But before we examine these provision, it is desirable to set out the facts found by the District Judge, which have not been challenged before us.

2. The alleged lunatic is a member of a family of Saha Chaudhuries, whose ancestral abode is at Parsadanga in the District of Pabna. The family residence at Parsadanga was partitioned in 1901 between the grandfather of the alleged lunatic and his two co-sharers, and was assigned to the shares of the letter, Gobinda, the grand father of the alleged lunatic, appears to have entertained an intention at one time to build a suitable family residence at Parsadanga, for his branch of the family; but this was not carried into effect owing to the death of his son Harendra. What actually happened was that Gobinda came to live in Calcutta, where he had a house in Hatkhola. Here he carried on a lucrative business in paddy and grains, and acquired considerable house property in Calcutta. During the last 13 years of his life, he lived in Calcutta, and his grandsons (the alleged lunatic and his brother Surendra) lived with him. Since the death of Gobinda in 1913, his two grandsons have separated from their uncle Jogendra and Lave continued to live in Calcutta, although they are accustomed to go once or twice every year to Pabna and Parsadanga to look after their landed property. The evidence shows that on an average they lived about nine or ten months every year in their Calcutta house, and about two or three months a year at Pabna and Parsadanga. The womenfolk of the family live in the Calcutta house, and it is only the men who visit the district occasionally. The petitioner Anilabala was married to Dhirendra, the alleged lunatic, about ten years before the commencement of these proceedings. She lived with him only in the Calcutta house, except in March 1917, when she took him to live with her in her father's house at Pabna. There, on the 22nd May 1917, Dhirendra executed a trust-deed in favour of Anilabala. Soon afterwards, his brother Surendra came to Pabna and managed to take him away from Anilabala to his own house. There on the 10th July 1917, Surendra caused Dhirendra to revoke the previous trust-deed and to execute a fresh trust-deed in his own favour. On the 14th August 1917, Anilabala instituted these proceedings in the Court of the District Judge at Pabna under the Indian Lunacy Act. 1912. On that date, Dhirendra was at Parsadanga; but on the next day, apparently as soon as the institution of the lunacy proceedings became known, he hurriedly left in charge of two men and reached Calcutta on the 16th August 1917. The question arises, whether in these circumstances, the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

3. The India Lunacy Act, 1912, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to lunacy, repealed the Lunacy (Supreme Courts) Act, 1858, and the Lunacy (District Courts) Act, 1858. The Act is divided into four parts. The first part contains one chapter which deals with preliminary matters. The se