Judgment 1. This miscellaneous,(First Appeal) arises against order dated 12-3-1981 by which the learned District Judge Samastipur declared one Ramji Singh as of unsound mind under S.3(5) of the Lunacy Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The present appellant and the aforesaid Ramji Singh are relations and are grandsons of one Balak Mahto. 3. On 27-7-68 the respondent (Most. Bipti Devi) filed an application under Ss.62 and 71 of the Act and prayed that she be appointed as guardian of the person and manager of the properties of her husband Ramji Singh on the ground that her husband Ramji Singh was an idiot and was of abnormal state of mind having no capacity to understand and to distinguish between right and wrong. It was further stated in that application that she (the respondent in the present appeal) was managing the properties possessed by her husband and was also looking after his person. The properties claimed to be managed by her were described in Annex-A of that petition. She averred in that application that in order to meet the expenses towards the maintenance and treatment of her husband, she was in need of borrowing money from others and to dispose of some of the properties to meet the expenses and under these circumstances she prayed for being appointed as guardian of the person and manager of the properties of her husband Ramji Singh. 4. This application was numbered as Lunacy Case No. 42 of 1968 before the learned District Judge, Samastipur. The learned District Judge ordered directing inquisition and in course thereof proper notices were given in the inquisition proceeding. 5. The present appellant entered appearance on 15-4-69 and filed objection on 30-7-69 and he denied the statements made in the petition dt. 27-7-68 filed by Most. Bipti Devi (Respondent in the present appeal). The present appellants case before the learned District Judge was that Ramji Singh (the husband of Most. Bipti Devi) was not an idiot and of abnormal state of mind. 6. Both the parties entered into evidence in support of their respective cases. 7. The learned District Judge by the impugned order held : "(i) That Ramji Singh was of unsound mind, under S.3(5) of the Lunacy Act, 1912 (wrongly stated as S.2(5) of the Act. Bipti Devi) was not an idiot and of abnormal state of mind. 6. Both the parties entered into evidence in support of their respective cases. 7. The learned District Judge by the impugned order held : "(i) That Ramji Singh was of unsound mind, under S.3(5) of the Lunacy Act, 1912 (wrongly stated as S.2(5) of the Act. (ii) On inquisition, I find that Ramji Singh is not capable of managing himself his affairs and a guardian has to be appointed. The applicant is the wife of the Lunatic and, I think that her appointment as guardian of his properties and person is for the benefit of the lunatic. So, I appoint the applicant Most. Bipti Devi as guardian of the person and properties of Ramji Singh. She is directed to furnish sureties equivalent to the value of the properties of the lunatic undertaking that she would properly look after the properties and on failure, the bond or any amount of bond shall be forfeited. It is further ordered that the guardian (Most. Bipti Devi) shall within six months from this date submit inventory of the immoveable property belonging to the Lunatic and of all such money or other moveable properties as she may receive on account of the Estate together with a statement of all the debts due by the same. She will also furnish to this court within three months of the close of every year on account of the property in her charge exhibiting the sum received or disbursed of the Estate and the balance/remaining with her. Bond to be executed within a week/after the office calculated value of the properties as described in the petition. The applicant herself may give valuation before such calculation by the office." 8. The learned counsel for the appellant though initially urged a few points for being considered by this court yet, in all fairness, he submitted that if the finding with regard to unsoundness of mind of Ramji Singh, as given by the learned District Judge in the impugned order, is clarified by this court as to, in law, what period it takes one to; in that case, the learned counsel submitted that the other submissions (which purposely I have not mentioned above) are not pressed. 9. 9. The learned District Judge has held "I hold that Ramji Singh is of unsound mind under S.3(5) of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 ". I have already stated above that the application by the respondent (Most. Bipti Devi) was filed on 27-7-68. 10. The question arises whether the aforesaid finding of the learned District Judge can, in law, be taken to be a finding even for the period prior to the date of application i.e. prior to 27-7-68. The obvious answer is no. It is well settled, that the Act contemplates only the question of lunacy or sanity at the time of the enquiry; there is no provision in the Act that the enquiry shall extend to the ascertainment of the period at which the alleged lunatic first became of unsound, mind. Reference be made to the well known case of Baboo Bodh Narayan Singh V/s. Baboo Umraon Singh (Reported in (1869-70) 13 Moo Ind App 519 at p. 524.) This legal principle was followed in the case of Kasim Mamooji V/s. K.B. Dutt (Reported in AIR 1916 Cal 51(2) at p. 54.) Occasion arose again to consider the scope of Sec. 62 in the case of Ranjit Kumar Ghose V/s. Secretary, Indian Psycho Analytical Society AIR 1963 Cal 261 at p. 266) and on a construction of the provision of the Act it was held that Lunacy Act does not contain any procedure or permit any procedure by which a man today can be declared to be a lunatic 10 years ago in the past. Such is the well established principle in law as stated above in various cases referred to above. 11. In view of these settled principles of law, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Most. Bipti Devi very fairly conceded that the finding of the learned District Judge about the lunacy of Ramji Singh could not date back before the enquiry began in the present lunacy case in question; in any case he conceded that it cannot date back before 27-7-68 the date on which his client" (Most. Bipti Devi) filed the application before the learned District Judge under Ss.62 and 71 of the Act. 12. In view of the fair concession, in law, made by the learned counsel for the respondent Most. Bipti Devi) filed the application before the learned District Judge under Ss.62 and 71 of the Act. 12. In view of the fair concession, in law, made by the learned counsel for the respondent Most. Bipti Devi, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he did not press other submissions as initially made for consideration by this court, as he was satisfied on the legal principles having been made clear by this court and he prayed for an appropriate order to be passed in this case. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid legal observation. However, there will be no order as to cost.