The distinction between mere weakness of intellect and lunacy, and the requirement that the incapacity of a person to manage himself and his affairs must be directly attributable to the incapacity of his mind.

ORDER :- R. Lingaraj, who has been held to be a lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and respondents 1 to 4 in O. P. No. 169 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Coimbatore (West) are the appellants. The proceedings between the parties have a long and chequered history and for a full appreciation of the controversy it is necessary to refer to the course of the litigation from its inception. Parvathi alias Kundhiammal, the respondent herein, is the wife of Lingaraj. She came forward with a petition under Sections 62 and 67 of the Act for directing an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether her husband, Lingaraj, is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and for consequential orders and directions of Court, if the Court found on inquisition that Lingaraj is of unsound mind. Though she had given birth to three sons and a daughter through Lingaraj, the respondent's case was that, Lingaraj had been of unsound mind from the year 1967 and he was incapable of managing his affairs. It was her further case that in or about the first week of July 1969, the brothers of Lingaraj who are appellants 3 to 5 herein, decoyed Lingaraj from his house and were detaining him unlawfully in their custody. Subsequent to the decoyment of Lingaraj, one of his brothers by name Krishnaraj, was also reported to have induced Lingaraj to execute a lease deed in respect of his tea estate, the terms of which were detrimental to the interests of Lingaraj and his family members, and had thereby taken undue advantage of the mental condition of Lingaraj. In those circumstances, the respondent wanted the Court to hold an inquisition about the mental condition of Lingaraj and if the Court found him to be a lunatic, make suitable provision for the custody of Lingaraj and the management of his properties.

2. The petition was resisted by Lingaraj as well as appellants 2 to 5 and in the counter-statements filed by them, it was contended that Lingaraj was not of unsound mind or a lunatic, that he was not incapable of managing himself and his affairs, that he was not decoyed by the appellants 2 to 5, that he was not detained unlawfully and that the lease deed entered into by him was a fair transaction and was forged, for proper and bona fide reasons. It was further contended that the petition had been filed for motivated reasons as Lingaraj had refused to convey his properties to the name of the respondent.

3. The learned District Judge of Coimbatore examined Lingaraj on 26-2-1970 by putting him some questions. On such examination, the learned Judge found that Lingaraj was able to give rational answers to the questions put by him, but nevertheless, he directed the Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund, under Section 66 (1) of the Act, to hold an enquiry regarding the lunacy of Lingaraj and submit a report. In compliance with this order the learned Subordinate Judge examined Lingaraj and submitted a report that he was not a lunatic. The learned District Judge accepted the report of the Subordinate Judge and, without any further enquiry, acted upon it by declaring that Lingaraj was not a lunatic.

4. Aggrieved by the perfunctory manner in which the matter had been dealt with, the respondent preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 249 of 1970. Ganesan, J. sustained the contention of the respondent and held that a proper inquisition had not been done in the matter and the District Judge had failed to adopt the prescribed procedure in the matter of holding an inquisition under the Act Consequently, the appeal was allowed and Ganesan, J. remitted the matter to the learned District Judge for fresh disposal of the case according to law.

5. In the enquiry held subsequent to the order of remand, the District Judge examined Lingaraj on 25-3-1972 and made the following order :

"Adjournment prayed for on behalf of the petitioner refused. The alleged lunatic present. I personally exa