The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting a proper inquisition before dismissing an application under the Indian Lunacy Act and the gravity of consequences in adjudging a person as a lunatic.

Shamsuddin, J.

Petitioner in O.P. (Lunacy) No. 159 of 1980 on the files of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant.

2. Appellant filed the above application under Ss.40,41,42,62 and 63 of Indian Lunacy Act IV of 1812 (hereinafter referred to as the act), seeking to declare that his father's sister, Pathummal Beevi Kunju is a lunatic and to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of her person and properties. There is also a prayer in the petition to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No. 91 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Nedumangad is void and will not bind the lunatic or her properties. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge stating that questions were put to her by him and on a perusal of the answers given by her, he was not satisfied that she was of unsound mind. In this M.F. Appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the court below.

3. The aforesaid Pathummal Beevi Kunju is a widow. The father of the petitioner was acting as the guardian, but he passed away. It is alleged in the petition that the aforesaid Pathummal Beevi Kunju was insane for the last 25 years and that 1st and 2nd counter petitioners collusively obtained a decree in O.S.91/75 against the alleged lunatic, without getting a guardian appointed for her under 0.32 Rule 15 C.P.C. 1st counter petitioner is the paternal uncle of the petitioner and the brother of the alleged lunatic. 2nd counter petitioner opposed the application and disputed the correctness of the averments contained in the petition and denied that the aforesaid Pathummal Beevi Kunju is a lunatic.

4. S.3(5) of the Act defines 'lunatic 'as an idiot or person of unsound mind. Chapter IV of the Act deals with judicial inquisition as to lunacy proceedings in presidency towns and Chapter V relates to proceedings in lunacy outside presidency towns. S.62 states that, whenever any person not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the courts mentioned in S.37 (courts in Presidency Towns) 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 inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. S.64 states that the provisions of Ss.40,41 and 42 shall regulate the proceedings of the District Court with regard to the matters to which they relate. Sub-sec. 1 of S.40 states that notice shall be given to the alleged lunatic of the time and place at which it is proposed to hold the inquisition. Sub-sec.2 of S.40 states that if it appears that personal service on the alleged lumtic would be ineffectual, the court may direct such substituted service of the notice as it thinks fit. Sub-sec. 3 of S.40 states that the court may also direct a copy of such notice to be served upon any relative of the alleged lunatic and upon any other person to whom in the opinion of the court notice of the application should be given. Sub-sec. 1 of S.41 states that the court may require the alleged lunatic to attend at such convenient time and place as it may appoint for the purpose of being personally examined by the court, or by any person from whom the court may desire to have a report of the mental capacity and condition of such alleged lunatic. Sub-sec. 1 of S.65 investes the District Court with powers to appoint two or more persons to act as assessors to the court in the inquisition. Sub-sec. 2 of S.65 states that 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. In this appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the court below has not properly