Uduma Lebbe V. Uduma Lebbe

1912 Present: Lascelles C.J. and Ennis J.

UDUMA LEBBE v. UDUMA LEBBE.

109-D. C. Puttalam, 1.

Lunatic-" Of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs "- Appointment of manager of estate-Civil Procedure Code, chapter XXXIX., s. 555.

For the purposes of the appointment of a manager of the estate, and the further orders which can be made under chapter XXXIX-of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not necessary to prove complete insanity rendering the alleged lunatic incapable of looking after himself. It is sufficient to show that he is so far unsound in mind as to be incapable of managing his affairs.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Sampayo, K.C., for appellant.

Cur. adv. vult.

van Langenberg, K.C., for respondent.

October 16, 1912. LASCELLES C.J.-

This is an appeal from a finding of the District Judge, on an inquiry held under chapter XXXIX. of the Civil Procedure Code, that the appellant is of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs.

The appellant is admittedly a person of limited mental powers, but it is contended that his mental deficiency does not amount to imbecility. The question is, therefore, one of degree, which must be decided by reference to the ordinary standard of human intelligence.

During the argument there was some discussion as to the meaning of the words " of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs " in the definition of the term " lunatic " in section 555 of the Civil Procedure Code. But I think it was conceded that in order to find the appellant a " lunatic " it was necessary to find that he was afflicted with mental unsoundness, and that by reason of that unsoundness he was disabled from managing his affairs.

Whether regard be had to the medical evidence, to the evidence afforded by the appellant's conduct, or to his personal examination at the inquiry under section 560, the result is the same. The evidence that the appellant is and has been for some time in a state, of imbecility is, in my opinion, overwhelming. No good purpose would be served by going through this evidence in detail, and I will only refer generally to the evidence under the three heads which I have mentioned.

With regard to the medical evidence, the appellant was under the observation of Dr. Thomasz in March, 1911. (in connection with another case), and Dr. Thomasz was then of opinion that he was an idiot. Having had an opportunity of observing the appellant during the inquiry, Dr. Thomasz adhered to this opinion. Dr. Santiago's evidence, so far as it goes, corroborates that of Dr. Thomasz. On the other hand, the learned District Judge refused to believe the evidence of Dr. Rosairo, and counsel for the appellant did not ask us to rely on it. The medical evidence is thus all on one side.

The evidence afforded by the appellant's conduct is analysed by the District Judge. It shows that the appellant had signed promissory notes, mortgages, and transfers of property in the most reckless manner. During the three years preceding June, 1911, he raised Rs. 43,000 on promissory notes and mortgages. There is no evidence as to what was done with this money, or whether any considerable proportion of it ever reached the appellant's hands. Within a period of about six months the appellant gave away or otherwise alienated land of the estimated value of about a lac of rupees. I do not think it advisable1 to comment on these transfers, as it is not improbable that their validity may be the subject of further proceedings. But here again there are grave reasons for doubting whether the appellant received anything approaching to an adequate consideration for this property.

The personal examination of the appellant affords the strongest evidence of his mental incapacity.

Although born in a good position, he has been unable to learn how to write and read. He cannot count beyond ten. He did not know how many 25-cent pieces made a ru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document