1. We are told that there is no decision of any Indian Court on the question involved in this case: and we also find that "there is singularly little English authority" on this aspect of the law (vide Winfield on Tort). The question relates to the liability of a person of unsound mind for a tort committed by him.

2. The appellant is a Hindu belonging to Ramnad District; and he used to come to Alleppey often. And during such visits, he used to go to the Mullac-kal temple and worship there. On 7th October 1961, he entered the temple wearing shirt and shoes and broke the idol of the deity; and he was caught and handed over to the police. From his behaviour, the Police suspected that be must have been insane; and they handed him over to the nearest doctor. The doctor kept him under observation till 21st October and issued a medical certificate stating

"Indifferent to the surroundings. Does not sleep at night. Talks incoherently-Laughs without any reason."

And from this he came to the conclusion that the appellant was insane.

3. he appellant was prosecuted before the criminal court for criminal trespass, mischief, etc.; and the Magistrate acquitted him holding that he was insane