Courtney-Terrell, C.J:— This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of the Santal Parganas made under the Lunacy Act finding that one Narayan Chandra Upadhya is a person of unsound mind and appointing his father, Ganga Prasad Upadhya, as manager of the estate and guardian of the person of the lunatic.
2. The lunatic is a young man who was born on the 15th Baisakh 1319. His mother died when he was about two years old. He has been an invalid all his life and at the present time is an epileptic and suffers from the usual succession of daily epileptic fits. He has a small property which yields an income of about Rs. 2,000. In the year 1915 there was litigation in which the father was appointed guardian of his person and property on the ground that he was a minor. The young man attained majority on the 16th Baisakh 1340, and then the father applied for discharge from his liability of guardianship. The young man went to live with some relatives and apparently made a deed of gift of a considerable part of his property to a lady who is the objector in the proceedings before us. We have been told that the lady had a legal claim to the property which was given to her by the young man but whether that be the case or not we have not to decide in the present circumstances and we express no opinion upon this part of the matter. It is obvious that the lady and her relatives have a motive for opposing the order of the District Judge declaring that the donor of the property is a person of unsound mind, because such a decision might conceivably affect the legality of the gift. But upon this aspect of the matter we make no pronouncement whatever.
3. The father, on hearing of this deed of gift, promptly made an application for a commission to issue to inquire into the allegations which he then made as to the lunacy of his son. The Judge made an order for a commission and as the young man lived at some considerable distance from the Court he appointed a Subordinate Judge to conduct the inquisition in which he was to be assisted by two assessors, one of whom was a medical gentleman of considerable experience. The other person nominated by the Subordinate Judge was objected to by the objectors and another person was substituted in his place.
4. The learned District Judge examined the young man. He had him before him in Court and set him what, might be called a mild type of examination and gave him a piece of paper, on which he was asked to write a little essay accounting for his movements over a certain period of time just preceding the inquisition. He was examined in Court and gave, apparently reasonably intelligent replies to questions put to him. The assessors, who assisted the Subordinate Judge stated as their opinion that the young man had attacks, of typhoid fever, that he was at the time they examined him suffering from a defective mental capacity and that he suffered from epilepsy with the usual result of periods of unconsciousness. They also drew attention to certain other bodily defects and maladies from which the young man suffered. The learned Subordinate Judge made his report and the District Judge passed the order which is now complained of.
5. We took the precaution to have the young man brought before us. We interviewed him for some little time privately but in the presence of the advocates on the respective sides and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the opinion of the District Judge is entirely correct.
6. An argument has been addressed to us to the effect that the words of the statute are that a person must be an idiot or a person of unsound mind. That is undoubtedly true. We were reminded that an idiot is a term applied to a person whose mind has been defective from birth whereas unsoundness of mind usually has some traumatic origin; but unsoundness of mind does not necessarily imply mania. Unsoundness of mind is of various kinds. Now no person can have direct experience of the mind of another and the proper test of insanity is conduct. A person might conceivably have all kinds of mental unsoundness; he might have all kinds of delusions, but if his conduct remains normal there would be no power under the Lunacy Act to deal with him because the law of Lunacy deals with conduct and the proper test for insanity is not the beliefs that the person concerned may entertain but the conduct exhibited by that person.
7. Now it frequently happens that persons of unsound mind are capable of logical answers to questions and of giving a reasonably intelligent account of themselves. That does not necessarily imply that such persons are capable of looking after themselves or that their minds are in such a condition that would enable them to look after themselves or their property. In this particular case the matter is quite beyond doubt that the young man has the usual periodical, attacks of unconsciousness. In addition to that, as usually happens in cases of epilepsy, his mental condition has obviously been seriously weakened and it would be an act of cruelty to Turn to allow him to move about and dispose of his property at his own will and pleasure in these circumstances. In saying this I do not mean to imply that the fact that he has given away already a large portion of his property necessarily implies insanity.
8. The young man admitted his condition as regards epilepsy; and his general mental lethargy, the aspect of his countenance, and the lack of appreciation which he showed in the investigation that we were making convince us that he is not a person to be left without proper guardianship and that he is properly described as a person of unsound mind.
9. We therefore dismiss this appeal. The objectors will have to pay the costs.
10. Agarwala, J.:— I agree.
B.D/V.V
11. Appeal dismissed.
Comments