DADA Vs. CHANDRA BHAGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been appointed by the District Judge, Wardha, the manager of his father Pandurang, who has been declared a lunatic and incapable of managing his own property, and he has appealed to this Court on the ground, that no manager can be appointed for a lunatic's undivided interest in joint family property. The facts of the case are simple and may be briefly stated. The appellant Dada alias Bhimrao and his father Pandurang form a joint Hindu family. Pandurang has 2 wives, Mt. Chindrabhaga Bai and Mt. Bhima Bai. These two wiyes made an application un der the Lunacy Act, for the appointment of a manager of their husband's interest is the family property and for the appointment of a guardian of his person, They alleged that Dada was mismanaging thsestate since his father became a lunatic. The appellant Dada admitted his father's lunacy and his incapacity to manage the estate, but pleaded that he was not guilty of any waste or mismanagement and that the estate was indebted when his father became a lunatic He admitted that the debts on the property had increased, but stated that the increase was not due to any mismanage ment on his, part, he further pleaded, that, even if mismanagement and misconduct be proved against him, he could not be deprived of his right to manage the estate, and that the wives of Pandurang and Pandurang himself were only entitled to maintenance out of the estate.

(2.) THE District Judge found that Pandurang was a lunatic and incapable of managing his property, but that he had not forfeited his interest in the joint family property by reason of his lunacy. The District Judge further found that a manager could be appointed for a lunatic's interest in joint family property and that the appointment of a manager was necessary in the present case. He thereupon appointed the appellant as the guardian of the person of his father Pandurang and as manager of the property. The effect of this order is really that the Court will have control over the management of the property, as accounts will have to be exhibited annually and transfers and alienations cannot be made without the sanction of the Court. There is no actual change in the management as the appellant Dada has been managing the whole property for some years and he will continue to do so. The only result of the order is that he will now manage the property under the control of the Court.

(3.) THE real contest, however, in the appeal is with regard to the 2nd ground in the memorandum of appeal, viz., whether a manager can be appointed for a lunatic's undivided interest in a joint family property. On this point there is certainly a conflict of authority, and the matter is not free from difficulty. The Lunacy Act (Act 4 of 1912) is silent in the mattter. Section 67 of the Act simply states that the Court may make orders for the custody of lunatics and for the management of their estates Section 68 refers to the estate of a lunatic which consists of property subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards. S, 69 deals with the estate of a lunatic which consists in whole or in part of land or any interest in land which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards. Section 71 simply states that in all other cases the District Court shall appoint a manager of the estate of the lunatic and may appoint a guardian of his person. The wording of this section appears to be imperative as regards the appointment of the manager of the property, the section stating that a manger of the estate shall be appointed.