JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order of Sri O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly dated 21.4.1973 dismissing the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector Tahsildar, Aonla, district Bareilly dated 25.6.71 in Case no. 416 under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated here. One Saktoo singh, son of Baldev Singh moved an application before the Tahsildar, Aonal on 27.5.68 for permission to deposit ten times rent for his half share in 14 plots with an area of 9.13.5 with a land revenue of Rs. 23.36 situate in village Jagannathpur. The office reported that the applicant Saktoo Singh was recorded as co-sirdar of the holding along with Medhai Singh land that he may he allowed to deposit ten times rent of his share after due notice to the co-tenure-holder. Ten times rent was duly deposited by Saktoo Singh on 28.5.68. On 15.7.68, Mehdai Singh filed an objection to the effect that Saktoo Singh was a lunatic for the last twenty years and was under his care and that he had not made nay application depositing the ten times rent. Saktoo Singh filed a reply in the Tahsildar's Court on 6.8.68 to the effect that he was fully in his senses and that he had duly made an application for depositing of ten times rent and had deposited the rent in the Sub-Treasury. He alleged that Medhai Singh wanted to take undue advantage of the entire holding and had, therefore, filed the objection against the grant of the Sanad. An affidavit was also field by Saktoo singh on 21.8.68 in support of his application was filed on behalf of Saktoo Singh to the effect that some Person of the village had got ten times rent deposited by him through fraud and that he did not now wish to be bhumidhar of the land. He prayed that the ten times amount may be refunded to him and the bhumidahri Sanad should not be issued in his name. On 20.1.71, one Raja Ram Singh filed an application before the Tahsildar alleging that he had purchased the holding in question from Saktoo Singh through a registered sale deed and since his interests was now involved, he may be impleaded. This application was allowed. On 20.1.71, one Raja Ram Singh filed an application before the Tahsildar alleging that he had purchased the holding in question from Saktoo Singh through a registered sale deed and since his interests was now involved, he may be impleaded. This application was allowed. By order dated 25.6.71 the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, Aonla held that a sirdar may apply for grant of bhumidhari sanad, but if he subsequently changes his mind, he has also the right to get the amount refunded before the grant of the Sanad. The learned Tahsildar ordered that the bhumidahri Sanad shall not be issued, but the refund of the amount may be kept pending. Raja Ram Singh went up in appeal against this order before the Additional Commissioner who has dismissed the appeal on 21.4.73. He has now come up in revision before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned additional Commissioner has wrongly held that Saktoo Singh was of unsound mind and did not present any application under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. At of his own free will. He was argued that the trial court had rightly held that the question of lunacy was outside the jurisdiction and that Saktoo Singh had made his first application date 27.5.68 without any undue pressure and deception. The trial court, however, allowed the second application of Saktoo Singh for withdrawal relying upon the ruling of the Board of Revenue 1968. He has further argued that the question of lunacy was without jurisdiction of the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Additional commissioner has acted illegally and has caused miscarriage of justice in holding Saktoo Singh to be a lunatic. 5. The procedure regarding judicial inquisition as to lunacy are contained in the Indian Lunacy Act (Act IV) of 1912. He has further argued that the question of lunacy was without jurisdiction of the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Additional commissioner has acted illegally and has caused miscarriage of justice in holding Saktoo Singh to be a lunatic. 5. The procedure regarding judicial inquisition as to lunacy are contained in the Indian Lunacy Act (Act IV) of 1912. The relevant provisions of this Act are as follows: "62 Whenever any person not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Courts mentioned in section 37 is possessed of property and is alleged to be a lunatic, the District Court, within whose jurisdiction such person is residing may, upon application, by order direct an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether such person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs." "63 (1) Application for such inquisition may be made by any relative of the alleged lunatic or by any Public Curator appointed under the Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Curator), or by the Government Pleader, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or it the property of the alleged lunatic consists in whole or in part of land or any interest in land, by the Collector of the district in which it is situate." (2) If the property or any part thereof is of such a description that it would by the law in force in any Province where such property is situate subject the proprietor, if disqualified, to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards, the application may be made by the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards." "67, (1) The Court may make order for the custody of lunatics so found by inquisition and the management of their estates. (2) When the inquisition it is specially found that the person to whom the inquisition relates is of unsound mind so as to be incapable of managing his affairs, but that he is capable of managing himself and is not dangerous to himself or to others, the Court may make such orders as it thinks fit for the management of the estate of the lunatic including proper provisions for the maintenance of the lunatic and of such members of his family as are dependent on him for maintenance but it shall not be necessary to make any order as to the custody of the person of the lunatic." "69. (1) If the estate of a lunatic so found consists in whole or in part of land or any interest in land, but is not of such a nature that it would subject he proprietor, if disqualified, to the jurisdiction of the Court of wards, the District Court may direct the Collector to take charge of the person and the estate of the lunatic. Provided that no such order shall be made without the consent of the Collector Previously obtained. (2) The Collector shall thereupon appoint a manager of the estate, and may appoint a guardian of the person of the lunatic." "71. (1) 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: Provided that a District Court may instead of appointing a manager of the estate of a lunatic, exercise any of the powers conferred on the High Court under Sections 56 and 59. (2) Any person who has been appointed by the District Court of Collector to manage the estate of a lunatic shall, if so required, enter into a bound in such form and with such sureties as to the Court or the Collector, as the case may be, may seem fit, engaging duly to account for what he may receive in respect of the property of the lunatic." 6. The intention of the law is that the property of a lunatic should be duly looked after and used for his benefit. It is not the intention of the law that the property of a lunatic should be used for the benefit of his relatives. The intention of the law is that the property of a lunatic should be duly looked after and used for his benefit. It is not the intention of the law that the property of a lunatic should be used for the benefit of his relatives. It is for this purpose that the jurisdiction of declaring a person to be a lunatic and thereafter to make arrangements for the management of his property, has been given to the District Court. The Additional Commissioner has not been given the jurisdiction under the law to declare any person to be a lunatic and thereafter to pass orders regarding the property of the alleged lunatic. The learned counsel for the opposite party, Medhai singh has tried to support the order of the learned Additional Commissioner by reference to Baiju Lal Pathak v. Smt. Maina Dai and others, A.I.R. 1939 Patna 25, Ram Nath v. Somasundaram, A.I.R. 1941 Madras 505 and Rami Reddy v. Papi Reddi, A.I.R. 1963 Andhra Pradesh 160. In the first case, a Bench of the Patna High Court has observed as follows: "Now, on the face of it, the procedure adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge was irregular. There was an allegation before him that defendant 3 was of unsound mind or weak intellect and incapable of managing his affairs. That allegation, which by O.32 Rule 15 Civil P.C. is placed on the same footing as an allegation of minority and requires similar treatment, the learned Subordinate Judge was not in a position to reject forthwith. On the contrary he says that 'as this matter arose in the midst of the hearing of the case, the decision about the allegation of defendant 3 that he is of unsound mind was not made then, and defendant 3 was allowed to give evidence in support of the written statement field by his mother. The mental weakness was thus not directly put in issue at all, and it was only because there was on record a written statement which defendant 3 challenged as due to undue influence and misrepresentation that some evidence was apparently given regarding his actions; and it is on this evidence that the learned subordinate Judge ultimately comes to the conclusion that defendant 3 had failed to prove that he was incapable of managing his affairs. This overlooks the consideration that if the defendant were in fact suffering form mental infirmity, he would be incapable of proving anything unless a guardian ad litem was first appointed for him; he would not otherwise be effectively joined as party defendant. As the learned subordinate Judge was not in a position to reject the allegation of weakness of mind, he should have tried that issue like any material issue in the case by placing defendant 3 under a (provisional) guardian ad litem or curator; and the course to be followed subsequently would have depended on what was established at the enquiry into the mental condition of the party : compare 16 Mad 344 (Kasi Dass v. Kassim Sait) In the second case, learned Judge of the Madra High Court as follows: "The learned Judge says that it may be that defendant 4 is not very intelligent or a little weak in intellect. Then he goes on to observe that the fact that he is a man of weak intelligence is not a sufficient ground to hold that he is an insane man or to appoint a guardian ad litem for him. This proposition is one which cannot be accepted as correct. It depends certainly on the decree of weakness of intelligence. If the weakness is very great and such as to make defendant 4 incapable of protecting his interest when being sued or when suiting he would certainly come within the protection given to such person by O. 32, R. 15." In the third case, a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as follows: "(22) From these decisions, the following principle emerge: (1) Order XXXII, R. 15 C.P.C. places person of unsound mind or persons so adjudged in the same position as minors for purposes of Rs. 1 to 14. (2) Order XXXII, R. 15 C.P.C. applies not only to a person adjudged to be of unsound mind, as under the old Code, but also to a person of weak mind. (3) Where it is alleged that a party to a suit is of unsound mind, and the other party denies it, the Court must hold a judicial inquiry, and come to a definite conclusion, as to whether by reason of the unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, he is incapable of protecting his intensest in the suit. (3) Where it is alleged that a party to a suit is of unsound mind, and the other party denies it, the Court must hold a judicial inquiry, and come to a definite conclusion, as to whether by reason of the unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, he is incapable of protecting his intensest in the suit. (4) Mental infirmity may even by due to physical defects, if it renders him incapable of receiving any communication, or of communicating his wished or thoughts to others. (5) Whether a person is of unsound mind or mentally infirm for the purpose of the rule and the extent of the infirmity has to be found by the Court on inquiry. (6) Where the question of unsoundness of mind arises not only under O. XXXII, R. 15 C.P.C. but is also one of the issues in the suit, the Court has ample jurisdiction to enquiry into that question, and for that purpose seek medical opinion. (7) the enquiry should consist not only of the examination of the witnesses produced by the either party but also of the examination of the alleged lunatic by the judge, either in open court or chambers, and as Courts are generally presided over by lay-men, as a matter of precaution, the evidence of medical expert should be taken. (8) Of course, the opinion, of a doctor, as is the opinion of any other expert, under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act, is only a relevant piece of evidence. (9) The court may also compel the attendance of the alleged lunatic before it, and to submit himself for medical examination. If the alleged lunatic is in custody, the Court may direct the next friend or any other person having custody to produce him before the medical expert of examination. (10) Where the precaution of judicial enquiry is not observed, the person cannot be declared lunatic, and a guardian cannot be appointed for him. If the alleged lunatic is in custody, the Court may direct the next friend or any other person having custody to produce him before the medical expert of examination. (10) Where the precaution of judicial enquiry is not observed, the person cannot be declared lunatic, and a guardian cannot be appointed for him. (11) When a person is adjudged a lunatic irregularly and improperly, and notice was not served on him, and a guardian alone was allowed to appear and defend the suit and decree was passed owing to the guardian not putting up a proper defence, the alleged lunatic can treat the decree against him as an ex parte decree, and have it set aside under O. IX R. 13 C.P.C." None of the above weighty judgments, I am afraid, can render any support either to the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner or to the case of Medhai Singh. If Saktoo Singh really was of unsound mind for the last twenty years, and if Medhai Singh was really looking after him, he should have taken recourse to the provisions of the Indian Lunatic Act for the proper case of the person and the property of the alleged lunatic. On the other hand, it has come in the evidence produced by Medhai Singh himself that Medhai Singh's main interest has been to cultivate the land of Saktoo Singh. His main interest is not to look after Saktoo Singh at all. Medhai Singh has admitted in his statement that Saktoo Singh is not living with him for the last one month. This is also confirmed by the evidence of his witness Raghubir Singh. The learned Additional Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction is declaring Saktoo Singh to be a lunatic without considering the provision of law and without any proper inquiry as envisage in law. There is also no evidence at all that Medhai Singh is either the natural guardian or duly appointed guardian to look after Saktoo Singh. He is only a cousin and a co-tenure-holder. He can have, therefore, no right to object to the grant of a bhumidhari sanad to Saktoo Singh in respect of the latter's share in the holding. 7. There is also no evidence at all that Medhai Singh is either the natural guardian or duly appointed guardian to look after Saktoo Singh. He is only a cousin and a co-tenure-holder. He can have, therefore, no right to object to the grant of a bhumidhari sanad to Saktoo Singh in respect of the latter's share in the holding. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it was duly proved that Saktoo Singh had made the application under Section 134 of his own free will and this application was duly verified in the Court and that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly believed the evidence of the opposite party Mehdai Singh and discarded the evidence of the applicant. The legal position is that if Medhai Singh challenged that the original application for grant of bhumidhari sanad was not made by Saktoo singh of his own free will, he should have produced Saktoo Singh in the Court to prove eh allegation, particularly as he claimed to be the guardian of Saktoo Singh. Further, if Medhai Singh's case was that the application of Saktoo Singh dated 15.7.68 and his subsequent application dated 6.8.68 and his affidavit dated 21.8.68 did not bear this thumb-impression, he should have taken steps to get the opinion of the Fingerprint Expert. Medhai Singh has failed to do all this and has thus failed to do all this and has thus failed to discharge to burden imposed upon him under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. There is not the least evidence on record to show that these applications do not bear the thumb impressions of Saktoo Singh or that any fraud of coercion was brought upon Saktoo Singh in making these applications. On the other hand, there is un-rebutted oral evidence produced by the revisionist to the effect that the application were moved by Saktoo Singh himself voluntarily and of his own free will. Both Medhai Singh and Rajaram Singh, the contesting parties in the case, are related to Saktoo Singh, but Ram Bharose Lal, who is not related to either party and is Brahmin; the parties in the case being Thakurs, has deposed that Saktoo Singh was not a lunatic and that he lived separately from Medhai Singh. Both Medhai Singh and Rajaram Singh, the contesting parties in the case, are related to Saktoo Singh, but Ram Bharose Lal, who is not related to either party and is Brahmin; the parties in the case being Thakurs, has deposed that Saktoo Singh was not a lunatic and that he lived separately from Medhai Singh. He has also stated that Saktoo Singh had told him that he had executed a sale deed of the holding in question in favour of his relatives. The learned Assistant Collector/Tahsildar had rightly held that it was not proved that any proceedings in the case were fraudulent. The learned Additional Commissioner has set aside this finding of the trial court in a perverse manner by misreading the evidence. 8. The last contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it was open to a sirdar who had made an application for the grant of bhumidhari sanad to withdraw his application, but this view has since been reversed. He has referred to Awadhesh Saran v. Smt. Gilaria 1974 R.D. D. p, 102 at p. 106 and Dilan v. Smt. Ram Rati 1974 R.D. p. 243 at p. 257. In the first case, a learned bench of the Board had held as follows: "In the circumstances, it is held that a sirdar after having applied for a declaration under Section 134 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has no right to revoke the same." The same view has been reiterated in the second case. In this case Sri G.S. Sial giving the majority view observed as follows: "18. The acquisition or Bhumidhari rights is in itself a valuable right. The Legislature has given a Sirdar the discretion to become a Bhumidhr and thus acquire all the advantages and benefits bestowed upon a bhumidhar and no Sirdar can be denied of this right. In an objective interpretation of the legal position we should not allow ourselves to be awayed extraneous considerations are get concerned with what further the consequences, good and bad, disastrous or otherwise, follow, flowing from the acquisition of Bhumidiari rights which a Sirdar has voluntarily elected to acquire. The discretion or election to acquire bhumidhari rights is that of a person who is major and is capable of exercising his discretion in the matter. This discretion is available to him and exercisable till he makes the deposit and the application. The discretion or election to acquire bhumidhari rights is that of a person who is major and is capable of exercising his discretion in the matter. This discretion is available to him and exercisable till he makes the deposit and the application. Thereafter the law has to take its own course. The time gap between the application under Section 134 and others under Section 137 by the Assistant Collector which can be nominal in some cases or run into a long period in certain circumstances, should not, in itself, entitle some tenure-holder in whose case the orders of the Assistant Collector get delayed in inadvertent circumstances, to review their position. 19. Thus, in conclusion, I am of the view that a Sirdar having made up his mind to become a Bhumidhar and in pursuance of that intention makes the deposit of the requisite amount in the Government Treasury, he will have no option, or inherent right to withdrew the application. On the other hand, he has the indefeasible right to acquire Bhumidhari Sanad, and the State Government has no option of rejecting his application except in circumstances specified in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Sanad must be granted to him." 9. In my opinion the views expressed in the above judgments must be upheld. Serious consequence of fraud and misappropriation will follow if a sirdar, who had made an application of grant bhumidhari sanad and therefore deposited ten times rent in subsequently allowed to withdraw the application. He may in the meanwhile representing himself to be the bhumidhari of the holding in question, execute a sale deed for value consideration, and having obtained the sale proceedings thereafter resile from his earlier application. Pressure can also be brought upon him, as in the present case, by inserted parties to withdraw the application. The motives of these interested parties can be questionable. Law does not, therefore, envisage that the person applying for a bhumidhari Sanad and depositing the requisite amount in the Treasury can be given the second opportunity to withdraw the application, if he is a recorded tenure-holder. I, would, therefore, hold that saktoo Singh being a recorded co-sirdar of the holding having made an application for grant of the Sanad and having deposited the amount in the Sub-Treasure, could not be permitted to withdraw the application on a subsequent date. I, would, therefore, hold that saktoo Singh being a recorded co-sirdar of the holding having made an application for grant of the Sanad and having deposited the amount in the Sub-Treasure, could not be permitted to withdraw the application on a subsequent date. It is also material that during the intervening period, Saktoo Singh executed a registered sale deed of the land in question in favour of the present revisionist. The legal position is that the formalities required under the law for the grant of the bhumidhari sanad having been completed, the Assistant collector was bound to issue the bhumidhari Sanad in favour of Saktoo Singh. 10. The result is that I hereby allow the revision quash the orders of the below and direct that a bhumidhar Sanad be issued in the name of Saktoo Singh in respect of this share in the land in question.