1. ' This is an appeal under section 83 of Lunacy Act, IV of 1912 from the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 22-2-1969, dismissing an application made under sections 62, 65 and 67 of the Act by Amirud Din Khan for his appointment as a manager of the property belonging to his brother Wazirud Din who was alleged to be a lunatic.
2. ' Wazirud Din was a displaced person from District Jullundhur in undivided India. He owned some property there. On the eve of partition, he migrated to Pakistan and was allotted property in District Sialkot in lieu of the property abandoned by him in India. Description of it was given in the application filed in the lower Court for the appointment of the manager. Amirud Din Khan and Ata Mohyud Din Khan were real brothers of Wazirud Din. At one time in the past, Wazirud Din was admitted to a mental asylum at Lahore on 6-94952. Upon recovery, he was discharged from the asylum on 22-4-1959. His period of stay in the asylum was approximately seven years. Earlier to it, the alleged lunatic had gone to Kenya and given power of attorney to his brother Ata Mohyud Din Khan for management of his property.
3. ' Amirud Din Khan filed a petition under the aforenoticed sections of Lunacy Act for his appointment as manager of the property of the alleged lunatic. It was alleged that his elder brother Ata Mohyud Din Khan was squandering it. The petition was contested by Ata Mohyud Din Khan and averments in it were vehemently denied. In the course of trial of the petition, Wazirud Din was summoned in Court to know of his mental health. Learned Additional District Judge in a question-answer session and personal interview with the alleged lunatic found him a normal person and consequently, dismissed the petition.
4. ' Petitioner preferred an appeal from the order of learned Additional District Judge in this Court and urged that proper procedure for inquisition laid down in the Lunacy Act was not observed in the Court below. During pendency of appeal, my brother Akhtar Hassan, J. Also interviewed the alleged lunatic and put him all and sundry questions on different facets of his life. He perfectly understood them and gave their coherent and rational answers. He did not evince any perturbation.
5. Conclusion of Akhtar Hassan, J. Was that he was a normal person and was not victim of mental imbecility equivalent to the state of insanity.
6. ' Upon the conclusions arrived at in the lower Court as well as my learned brother Akhtar Hassan, J.
7. On personal interview with the alleged lunatic, the result of this appeal could not be different. In my opinion, the law in the Lunacy Act does not contemplate that a person alleged to be a lunatic must be exposed to the publicity and harassment of a public trial, unless there was some foundation for apprehending by the Court that he really suffered from idiocy or unsoundness of mind. Therefore, the Judge holding the proceedings under section 62 of the Lunacy Act, 1912 must first satisfy himself by inquiry and personal interview with the alleged lunatic that there is proper A ground for embarking upon inquisition. Having due regard to provisions in section 62 of the Act, if the Court after examining the alleged lunatic considers it unnecessary to proceed further, it has power to drop the proceedings in the matter of inquisition. In Vemasani Narasamma v. Vemasani Rama Naidu and another AIR (38) 1951 Madras 648, it was observed that where an application is made for directing an inquisition, the first thing which has to be done is that the Judge, either with notice to the lunatic or without notice, should carefully consider, whether the case is one which calls for an order directing an inquisition. An order directing an inquisition into a man's state of mind is a very serious thing, and such an order is intended by the statute to be a judicial determination carefully made upon adequate materials. In Ganga Bhavanamma and others v. Somaraju and another AIR 1957 Andh. Pra. 938, headnote (b) reads, "A Court has power to dismiss an application in limine without directing inquisition after examining the parties. In Kiiambi Venkata Rangacharyulu v.
8. Kilambi Gopalakrishnamacharyulu and others AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 110, it was held "that under section 62 of the Lunacy Act, 1912, the District Court "may" by order direct an inquisition. Prima facie it appears from the language of the section that the Court has got a discretion whether or not to direct an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. Before directing an inquisition, which is painful, oppressive and serious, the Court can hold a preliminary investigation to justify an order directing an inquisition. The District Court has jurisdiction and it is also its duty to satisfy itself first whether there is a prima facie case for directing inquisition, and, for that purpose, it is entitled to interview the alleged lunatic and if it is satisfied that the allegations are baseless, the District Court is justified in dismissing the petition in limine. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Court to give an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in proof of lunacy". It may be observed that in course of Letters Patent Appeal, the Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had itself interviewed the alleged lunatic by putting several questions to him. He gave sane, independent and proper answers for all the questions. His manner and behaviour appeared to the Bench to be proper and his memory also appeared to be good. Therefore, holding of an interview with the alleged lunatic for testing of the soundness of his mental health appeared to be clearly a permissible course in law. As observed above, not only the learned Additional District Judge but by a learned Judge of this Court also, the behaviour of the alleged lunatic was found normal. In view of mental health of Wazirud Din, he could not be found to be a lunatic. It follows, therefore, that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs and the judgment of the Court below is affirmed.
9. ' Records be returned.