1. The effect of the Judge's ruling is to deny justice to persona who may be entitled to sue the lunatic, but who, not being relatives, are unable to get the lunatic adjudged to be such under the Act XXXV of 1858. This difficulty does not appear to have been present to the mind of the Court in the case of Narayana v. Krishna I.L.R. 8 Mad. 214 where it was assumed that any suitor could obtain an adjudication in lunacy as a matter of course, although it had been pointed out in the case quoted by the Judge Subaya v. Buthaya I.L.R. 6 Mad. 380 that only certain specified persons could move in the matter. In the absence then of any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the case of persons of unsound mind who have not been adjudged to be so under the Act, we must adopt the rule which prevails in English Courts and provide for the protection of the lunatic defendant by the appointment of a proper guardian ad litem, the right of suit against the lunatic being unquestionable. A similar course has been followed by the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts Venkatramana Rambhat v. Timappa Devappa I.L.R. 16 Bom. 132 Nabbu Khan v. Sita I.L.R. 20 All. 2: Paransukhram v. Bai Ladkor I.L.R. 23. Bom. 653.
2. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is therefore reversed and the appeal remanded for disposal in due course. It does not appear whether the District Munsif satisfied himself that the first defendant was a lunatic and approved of the proposed guardian ad litem as a fit and proper person. If these things have not yet been done, they must now be done according to law. Costa in this Court will abide and follow the result.