Skip to content


Sultan Ahmad Ali Rajah Avergal of Cannanore Vs. Arakkal Adi Rajah Cheria Ayissa Bibi Alias Ayichi Bibi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.106
AppellantSultan Ahmad Ali Rajah Avergal of Cannanore
RespondentArakkal Adi Rajah Cheria Ayissa Bibi Alias Ayichi Bibi and anr.
Excerpt:
lunacy act (iv of 1912), section 71 - lunatic's estate--property belonging to lunatic in common with brothers and sisters, lunatic's beneficial interest in. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of..........and though the guardian of the lunatic cannot claim the right to manage those properties on behalf of the sub-tarwad of the lunatic on the ground that the lunatic, if of sound mind, would have had such right, the lunatic has some beneficial interest in those properties as a member of the sub-tarwad and hence they cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in deciding what the estate of the lunatic is.2. the district judge's order will be modified by appointing the appellant as guardian of the estate of the lunatic (section 71 of the indian lunacy act, iv of 1912) without mentioning in the order what properties are to be included or excluded.3. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. Though the properties belonging to the lunatic in common with his brothers and sisters cannot wholly belong to the lunatic's estate, and though the guardian of the lunatic cannot claim the right to manage those properties on behalf of the sub-tarwad of the lunatic on the ground that the lunatic, if of sound mind, would have had such right, the lunatic has some beneficial interest in those properties as a member of the sub-tarwad and hence they cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in deciding what the estate of the lunatic is.

2. The District Judge's order will be modified by appointing the appellant as guardian of the estate of the lunatic (section 71 of the Indian Lunacy Act, IV of 1912) without mentioning in the order what properties are to be included or excluded.

3. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //