SRIMAT KILAMBI VENKATA RANGACHARYULU Vs. SRIMAT KILAMBI GOPALA KRISHNAMACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent is preferred against the Judgment of Krishna Rao, J., in C.M.A. No. 340 of 1957. The facts of the case are as follows :- O.P. No. 46 of 1957 was filed by the petitioner therein against three respondents to the O.P., under section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) praying to hold an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether the first respondent in the O.P., Srimat Kilambi Venkata Rangacharyulu is of unsound mind and to appoint a manager to the estate of the first respondent. The petitioner in the O.P. claimed to be an agnatic relation of the first respondent. According to the allegations in the O.P., the first respondent was married twice. The first wife having died in or about 1906, he married the sister of the second respondent. The petitioner was informed and believed the same to be true that the first respondent became a lunatic a short time before the death of his first wife or a very short time after her death and that he is incapable of managing his affairs ; but it is admitted in the O.P. that the first respondent is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to others. It is further alleged that respondents 2 and 3 were managing, the affairs of the first respondent and after the death of the second wife respondents 2 and 3 were trying to mismanage the estate for their own benefit and therefore it is necessary that an inquisition should be directed and a manager shall be appointed to the estate of the first respondent. The petitioner in the O.P. claimed that he would be the next heir of the first respondent and would inherit the first respondent's properties.

(2.) The application was numbered as O.P. 46 of 1957 on 16th April, 1957 and notices were ordered to be served for hearing on 26th April, 1957. Meanwhile, i.e., on 23rd April, 1957, the first respondent himself filed a counter denying that he was ever a lunatic and accepting that he had allowed his wife to manage his properties because he was religious-minded. He contended that it was not necessary to appoint a manager to manage the estate and prayed that the application may be dismissed.

(3.) He also stated that he is an educated man and that he was 73 years old. He contended that the petitioner's family and his family were not on good terms for a long time and that the petition was not a bona fide one. Respondents 2 and 3 also stated that the first respondent was not a lunatic and that he was capable of managing his own affairs.