K. Subba Rao, C.J:— This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order of the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, in O.P No. 59 of 1950 refusing to direct an inquisition in the case of an alleged lunatic.
2. The appellant filed an application under sections 62 and 63 of the Indian Lunacy Act to adjudge her deceased husband's brother Narasimhachari as a lunatic and to pass consequential orders for his custody and for the management of his estate. Before the learned Judge, the appellant has examined four witnesses. The substance of the evidence was that the alleged lunatic was unable to give proper answers to the questions put to him, that he did not carry on his caste profession of goldsmith, and that he was deaf and unable to manage his affairs. The learned Judge, not having been satisfied with their evidence particularly in view of their interestedness in the petitioner, interviewed the alleged lunatic and recorded the questions put to him and the answers given by him. He came to the conclusion that he was deaf and somewhat weak in body and intellect and that there was nothing to suggest that he was an idiot 01 a person of unsound mind. On that finding, he held that no c?se had been made out for directing an inquisition under the Act. The petitioner prefered this appeal against that Order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the term “unsound mind” in the Indian Lunacy Act comprehends imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, and, therefore, even on the facts found by the learned Judge, he should have directed an inquisition. To appreciate the contention, the relevant provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) may be read:
“Section 3(5): ‘Lunatic’ means an idiot or person of unsound mind.
Section 62: Whenever any person not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Courts mentioned in section 37 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.
Section 65(2): 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.”
4. Under these sections, the District Court may direct an inquisition, if a person is alleged to be a lunatic for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs. If he directs an inquisition, he shall determine two questions (i) whether the alleged lunatic is of “unsound mind” and is incapable of managing himself and his affairs and (ii) whether, though he is incapable of managing his affairs, he is capable of managing himself. Though the Act defines “lunatic” as an idiot or a person of unsound mind, the said words have not been defined.
5. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd edition, Vol. 21, “unsoundness of mind” is defined as a defect of reason consisting either in its total or partial absence or in its perturbation. At page 273, the learned author divides persons of mental incapacity into three categories (2) idiots, that is, persons who were born insane (ii) lunatics, that is, persons who have become insane since birth and (in) lunatics by their own act, for instance, drunkards. The Indian Lunacy Act comprehends the first two categories of insanity. Tek Chand, J., in Teka Devi v. Gopal Das A.I.R 1930 Lah. 289 explains the :scope of the relevant provisions of the Act, at page 291, as follows:
“Now in assuming jurisdiction under the Lunacy Act, the Court must, first of all, keep in view the distinction between mere weakness of intellect and lunacy as understood in the Act. In section 3(5) a ‘lunatic’ is defined as meaning an idiot or a person of unsound mind and it is hardly necessary to point out that it is only with lunatics as defined above that the Act is concerned. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court before proceeding further,’ to determine judicially whether the person alleged to be incapable of managing himself or his affairs is really a lunatic in this sense. Secondly, it must be remembered that this finding has got very far-reaching consequences and be given after very great care and deliberation…………”
6. This decision lays down that a Court has power to dismiss an application in limine after examining the parties and as a result of its personal interview with the alleged lunatic.
7. In Joshi Ram Kishan v. Rukmini Bai A.I.R 1949 All 449, the Allahabad High Court defined “lunatic” at page 452:
“The idea suggests some derangement of the mind, whatever be its degree.and it is not to be confused with or taken as analogous to a mere mental weakness or lack of intelligence”.
8. On the facts of that case, the learned Judges made the following observations:
“If a man is able to understand and answer questions on various matters except those relating to arithmetical calculations, he cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as mentally unsound although he would be held as having a weak or undeveloped mind.”
9. But a more comprehensive meaning was given to the words “unsound mind” by Latham, J., in In re Cowasji Beramji Lilaoovala (1882) I.L.R 7 Bom. 15. After considering the case law on the subject, the learned Judge concludes, at page 18:
“I think I should put an unduly restricted meaning on the term unsound mind and moreover a mischievous meaning tending greatly to lessen the usefulness of the Act, if I did not hold these words to comprehend imbecility whether congenital or arising from old age, as well as lunacy or mental alienation resulting from disease”.
10. We find it difficult to accept the said definition. Though weak-minded people also may require the assistance of others and the protection of Courts, to apply the Lunacy Act to such persons, is, in our view, to go beyond the scope and purpose of the Act. If the Legislature intended to bring in persons of weak intellect under the definition of a “lunatic,” it would have said so in specific terms. It appears to us incongruous to style a dull-witted man a “lunatic” either in its technical or popular sense.
11. It will be seen from the aforesaid discussion of the case-law that a Court has power to dismiss an application in limine without directing inquisition. They also bring out the meaning of the words “idiot” and “unsoundness of mind.” Both indicate an abnormal state of mind as distinguished from weakness of mind or senility following old age. A man of weak mental strength cannot be called an idiot or a man of unsound mind. The intellectual competency of the human mind is of varying degrees. It fluctuates between brilliance and dullness. Sometimes in the same individual brilliance in one field surprisingly appears in juxtaposition with subnormal practical apprehension in an allied field. The Act is not intended to protect dull-witted people but only those who suffer from a mental disorder or derangement of the mind.
12. If the aforesaid principle is applied, it is not possible to hold in the present case that the first respondent is a “lunatic” within the meaning of the Act. The learned judge examined him in person and satisfied himself that he was only dull-witted. The evidence given by the alleged lunatic is generally cogent except in regard to a simple arithmetical problem and does not give the impression of an idiot or a man of unsound mind pouring out his disjointed ideas in a jumble of unintelligible words. The Judge, who has seen his demeanour and followed his answers, accepted him as a sane, though dull-witted man. After going through the evidence we agree with him. The order of the lower Court is correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
13. A.B.K
14. Appeal dismissed.