' This appeal arises out of inquisition proceedings under provisions of Lunacy Act, 1912 for the purposes of ascertaining whether Ibrahim son of Ismail, since deceased, was a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and for appointment of Manager of his properties.
2. On 12-9-1966, Noor Hussain and 8 others alleged collaterals of Ibrahim filed an application under section 62 of Lunacy Act IV of 1912 in the Court of learned District Judge, Sheikhupura that Ibrahim son of Ismail was an idiot/lunatic for the last for more than thirty years and was incapable to look after his affairs and property. It was prayed that necessary inquiry into the matter may be made and a suitable person be appointed as Manager of his property to avoid its being squandered away by his wife and his two brother-in-law. Mst. Fatima wife of Ibrahim and her two real brothers were impleaded as parties to the above-stated petition. The petition was seriously contested. The alleged fact of Ibrahim son of Ismail being person suffering from unsoundness of mind or any embicility of mind rendering him incapable to manage himself or his property was seriously disputed. The territorial jurisdiction of District Court was also disputed.
3. During the pendency of inquisition proceedings as an interim relief, application seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property of alleged lunatic was also moved by the petitioners, Interim injunction prayed for was issued by the Court. This order was assailed before High Court in appeal. Appeal did not succeed and consequently was dismissed on 1-11-1967 by late Mr.Justice Karam Elahi Chohan (as his lordship then was). Question relating to want of territorial jurisdiction was also set at rest by the High Court in F.A.O. No, 40 of 1967.
4. Learned Additional District Judge on 15-4-1967 framed the following issues for trial of the petition:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' After framing the issues, learned Additional District Judge directed that the alleged lunatic be produced and consequently a notice was issued for his production in Court. On 14-11-1968, learned District Judge observed:- "Ibrahim says that he would produce the lunatice on 23-11-1968. Let him do so on that date. Sd / - Addl: Distt : Judge 14-11-1968"
' On 7-12-1968, Ibrahim son of Isma il, caste Kamboh apparently looking to be 50 years of age, resident of Tapiala Dost Muhammad, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, entered appearance.
Learned Additional District Judge held a question answer session with said Ibrahim in presence of both the parties and their learned counsel. Proceedings of the said date are reproduced below:- Sd/- Additional District Judge 7-12-68 {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} Sd/- Additional District Judge 7-12-68 "Ibrahim looks weak-minded. He is emaciated physically and mentally"
(Sd.) Additional District Judge.
7-12-1968"
5. On 4-1-1969, learned Additional District Judge observed "that the statement of 'lunatic' was recorded on the last hearing. If the parties want to produce any evidence on the point of lunacy, they shall do so on 18-1-1969. Process fee etc. within two days". Both the parties, therefore, produced evidence. Three P.Ws. were produced by the petitioners in support of their plea that Ibrahim son of Ismail was a lunatic and was not capable to manage his affairs or property. The other side also produced oral evidence to show that Ibrahim was a person of normal habits and was not suffering from any weakness in intellect or mind rendering him incapable to manage his affairs or property.
6. Learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, vide judgment dated 20-2-1969 found that though Ibrahim was a person of weak mind but was not an insane person (lunatic) and consequently, the petition was dismissed. The property of the alleged lunatic which had been placed under the management of an official receiver was released. Dis satisfied with impugned order, the alleged collaterals filed an appeal under section 83 of the Lunacy Act, IV of 1912. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Additional District Judge was not a medical expert, and as such should have following the regular procedure, prescribed under the Lunacy Act 1912, referred Ibrahim son of Ismail, the alleged lunatic for examination by a Medical Expert. The alleged lunatic was in the custody of Mst. Fatima, his wife, and was produced in Court by her and her brothers, During such a short period of interview with the learned Additional District Judge, through few homely questions, the correct picture of Ibrahim son of Ismail regarding his mental condition could not have been correctly assessed. The alleged lunatic was tutored by his wife and brothers-in-law. In view of the allegations made by the petitioner supported by certain sworn affidavits, it was incumbent upon learned Additional District Judge to have ordered reference to a Medical Expert which alone could have helped in the correct resolution of the controversy raised before the Court. Personal interview of the alleged lunatic through question-answer session cannot be held to be a valid substitute for complete examination by a Medical Expert. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the procedure adopted was defective and was not warranted by law.
7. Mr.Jari Ullah Khan, learned counsel for respondents has contended that the procedure adopted by learned Additional District Judge was perfectly in accordance with law and medical examination of Ibrahim son of Ismail who was otherwise a person of sound mind capable to attend to the normal avocations of his life was not necessary. The learned Court, before sending the alleged lunatic for Medical Examination by an Expert was bound to satisfy itself by an interview with the alleged lunatic to find out as to whether his medical examination was at all necessary. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Zanib Bibi v. Ghulam Nabi P D 1964 B J 1, Said Amir v.
Muhammad Amir PLD 1978 Lah. 1365 and Mat. Lachmina Kaur v. Rudra Narian Singh Allahabad Law Journal 1911 P.179. Learned counsel has also contended that the alleged lunatic i.e, Ibrahim son of Ismail has expired on 18-5-1982 and with his death, proceedings under lunacy Act have come to an end and have come infructuous. In any case, learned counsel contended that even if the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner was found sustainable, the case will have to be remanded to learned District Court for re-examination of the matter in the light of the medical test it' any, but that would not advance the cause, because the alleged lunatic is no more in this world to be subjected to medical test. Therefore jurisdiction under lunacy Act has ended with the death of Ibrahim.
8. Learned Additional District Judge has rightly relied not upon the oral evidence produced by the appellant in support of issue No,1 on the ground that it seemed to be exaggerated and did not give the correct picture. Examination of Ibrahim son of Ismail during question answer meeting by the Court revealed that he was feeble minded and weak in physique, but not insance. He responded by and large intelli gently to the questions put by the Court. It has been observed in the case of Lachmina Kaur v. Rudra Narain Singh Allahabad Law Journal P.179 that "in our opinion, the law does not contemplate that a person alleged to be a lunatic should be exposed to the publicity and harassm ent of a trial unless there is some foundation for apprehending that he is incapable of managing his affairs, It by no means follows that because a man may have delusions upon one or two points that he is incapable of managing his affairs".
9. The Court under the provisions of Lunacy Act must first of all keep in view the distinction between weakness of intellect and lunacy as understood in the Act. In Section 3(5) of the Lunacy Act, 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. It must also be remembered that this finding has got very far-reaching consequences and must be recorded after great care and deliberation. It may have the immediate effect of putting a human being under restraint. It might deprive him for a time or for ever of the possession and management of his property. It will prima facie be evidence of his lunacy and may be read in proof of it in other proceedings. The Court, therefore, cannot and ought not to deal with this all important question lightly and should not consider itself relieved of its responsibility by the mere circumstance that some or all of the relatives of the person concerned have declared that he is a lunatic. The proceedings under Lunacy Act may also have been started due to an evil design on the property of the alleged lunatic. Therefore, a little weakness in mind, intellect or physique does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a person suffering from such weakness is a lunatic or an idiot as defined under Lunacy Act and is incapable of attending to his own affairs or his property. It is quite clear that two things are to be determined in an inquisition under the Lunacy Act, that the alleged lunatic is of unsound mind of such a degree that he is incapable of managing himself and his property and though he might not be dangerous to himself or to the public but incapable of managing his own affairs, Therefore, in assuming jurisdiction under the Lunacy Act, the Court must keep in view the distinction between mere weakness of intellect and lunacy as understood and defined in the Act. The Act deals with the lunatic and its provisions are aimed at protecting his person and properties. It must be established that the person has some sort of mental derangement which made him incapable of managing his affairs, Such a state of mind should not be confused with or regarded as analogous to a mere mental weakness or lack of intelligence. A person with a weak and undeveloped mind cannot be held to be a person of unsound mind in proceedings under the Lunacy Act. In the, instant case, learned Additional District Judge, after framing issues' examined the alleged lunatic. Certain homely questions as stated above were put to him and the alleged lunatic gave intelligent answers except one or two meaningless utterances.
From his visible examination and the question answers, learned Additional District Judge came to a conclusion that though he may be of weak mind or feeble intellect yet was not insane or lunatic as defined under the Lunacy Act. Support for the above view may usefully be derived from the case of Mst. Jamila Begum v. Awam-un-Nas and 15 others PLD 1978 Lah.
1376. The procedure adopted by learned Additional District Judge to find out whether Ibrahim son of Ismail was suffering from any such serious imbecility of mind which could necessitate further proceedings under Lunacy Act, was perfectly in accordance with the letter and spirit of D the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1912 and the proceedings and the resultant order, therefore, do not suffer from any legal flaw. Even otherwise with the death of alleged lunatic, the proceedings have become infructuous, Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of Suba Sadiq v. Karam Din (Civil Revision No,625/69 decided on 18-9-1972 by this Court, PLD 1973 Note 115), wherein it has been observed "that with the death of the lunatic, the lunacy ipso facto ceases and the property of the lunatic becomes vested in his testamentary or/and non-testamentary heirs and if it is held that the District Court still retains jurisdiction over the property, it will amount to extending the scope of the Act to persons other than Lunatics". Similax,y in the case of Said Amir.v. Muhammad Amir (F.A.O.
No,150 of 1978) decided on 7-7-1982, it has been observed by learned Single Judge of this Court that "the main F.A.O out of which the present miscellaneous petition arises is directed against judgment dated 17-4-1978 passed by the District Judge, Sargodha, dismissing the appellants, application under section 62 of the Lunacy Act alleging that his father Muhammad Amir, the respondent, (since dead) was a lunatic. On account of the death of the said Muhammad Amir this appeal viz. F.A.O. No,150 of 1978 has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly".
' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is found to be without merit which fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.