ORDER Srinivasan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent herein under Section 67 of the Lunacy Act for a declaration that Ramachandran is a lunatic and for appointment of a guardian both for his person and property. Ramachandran is one of the sons of the first respondent in the original petition. The first respondent had two other sons besides Ramachandran, by name Venkataraman and Krishnamurthy. The petitioner in the original petition is the wife of Venkataraman. The second respondent therein is one of the daughters of the first respondent. Originally, in the said petition, respondents 3 to 7 were impleaded as alienees and the banks in which the monies belonging to Ramachandran were deposited. During the pendency of the original petition, the first respondent, mother of Ramachandran died and her daughter, two sons and a grand-daughter were impleaded as her legal representatives. They were respondents 8 to 11 in the main original petition. 2. The averment in the original petition was that Ramachandran was a lunatic for several years and the first respondent therein was looking after him. It was also stated that there were number of properties belonging to the lunatic besides deposits in banks. It was alleged that respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition were bent upon depriving the legal heirs of Ramachandran of their share in the properties after his demise and that the other sons of the first respondent were also colluding with them on a promise of illegal gratification. It was further alleged that the first respondent had completely secreted the movables of the lunatic and practically she was keeping the house of the lunatic vacant The immediate cause of action for the filing of the petition was stated to be alienations by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on the strength of a power of attorney obtained by them from Ramachandran. It was alleged that the properties were sold at a very low price. It was stated that Ramachandran could hot understand anything and it was necessary to appoint a guardian for his person and property. 3. The petition was contested by respondents 1 and 2 therein, who were the mother and sister of Ramachandran. It was alleged that the properties were sold at a very low price. It was stated that Ramachandran could hot understand anything and it was necessary to appoint a guardian for his person and property. 3. The petition was contested by respondents 1 and 2 therein, who were the mother and sister of Ramachandran. It was the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner in the original petition had gone out of the family after a family dispute and she was living separately and the petition was not, therefore, maintainable. According to the counter Ramachandran was suffering from asthma and other diseases and therefore, was not in a position to move about as he was bed-ridden. However, it was stated that he was not a lunatic as defined by the Act. It was stated that a power of attorney was executed by Ramachandran as he was not in a position to move about and attend to the affairs of the estate and that the decision to sell the lands was taken by him. It was contended that there was no justification for appointing a guardian for the person or property of Ramachandran and that the petition should be dismissed. 4. The Principal District Judge, Madurai, who heard the original petition, had Ramachandran examined by a medical practitioner and obtained a report as to his condition. The medical practitioner also gave evidence before the Court. Ramachandran was also questioned by the Court. The learned District Judge took the view that Ramachandran was a lunatic as defined by the Act and a guardian should be appointed for his person and property. The learned District Judge appointed the petitioner before him as guardian for the person and property of the lunatic. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent in the original petition, who is the sister of Ramachandran, has preferred this appeal. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that Ramachandran is not a lunatic though he has been suffering from some illness on account of which he has not been able to look after himself. Learned Counsel submits that merely because Ramachandran is not in a position to manage his properties he cannot be declared to be a lunatic. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that Ramachandran is not a lunatic though he has been suffering from some illness on account of which he has not been able to look after himself. Learned Counsel submits that merely because Ramachandran is not in a position to manage his properties he cannot be declared to be a lunatic. It is also contended by learned Counsel that in any event, the appointment of the first respondent herein as guardian of the person and property of the lunatic is wholly -unsustainable. Learned Counsel submits that the learned District Judge has not considered the relevant materials on the question of appointment of guardian. 7. Section 3(5) of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, defines, lunatic as meaning an idiot or person of unsound mind. Section 67 provides that the Court may make orders for the custody of lunatics so found by inquisition and the management of their estates. It is also provided under this Section that when upon the inquisition it is specifically 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 provision for the maintenance of the lunatic and of such members of his family as are dependent on him for maintenance. The section makes it clear that it shall not be necessary to make any order as to the custody of the person of the lunatic. Under the Section mere are two requisites. (1) the person should be of unsound mind and (2) he is incapable of managing his affairs. Only if both the requisites are satisfied the question of appointment of a guardian arises under the Act. 8. (i) In Teka Devi v. Gopal Das, A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 289, it is held that the Court must come to independent decision as to whether a person is really lunatic and the procedure laid down by the legislature under the Act must be strictly followed in conducting the inquiry. 8. (i) In Teka Devi v. Gopal Das, A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 289, it is held that the Court must come to independent decision as to whether a person is really lunatic and the procedure laid down by the legislature under the Act must be strictly followed in conducting the inquiry. It is also observed that the Court should not consider itself relieved of the responsibility by the mere circumstance that some or all the relatives of the person concerned have declared that he is a lunatic. (ii) In Sesha Ammal v. Venkatanarasimha Bhattachariar 67 M.L.J. 797 a Bench of this Court pointed out that the first finding to be arrived at in these matters is with regard to unsoundness of mind and once that is proved, then the Court has to consider whether that unsoundness of mind is of such a nature to render the person concerned incapable of managing his affairs. (iii) In Sonabati Devi v. Narayanan A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 423 it has been held by a Bench of the Patna High Court that if the conduct of person concerned remain normal inspite of his having all kinds of delusions, the Court could not have power under the Lunacy Act to deal with him because under the Act, the proper test for insanity is not the beliefs that the person concerned may entertain but the conduct exhibited by that person. (iv) In Joshi Ram Krishan v. Rukmini Bai A.I.R. 1949 All. 449, a Division Bench laid down that an order declaring a person to be of unsound mind and incapable on that account of managing his affairs is an order of a very serious character and that it has the effect of disqualifying him from using his own property in the manner he desires and placing a drastic check on his rights and privileges which, as a normal individual he would be entitled to enjoy. It was held that the Court ought not to deal light-heartedly with the important question as to whether a person is a lunatic within the meaning of the Act The Bench also proceeded to state that unsoundness of mind implies some unusual feature of the mind as has tended to make it different from, the normal and has in effect impaired the man's capacity to look after his affairs in a manner in which another person without such mental irregularity would be able to do in a matter of his own and there should be some derangement of the mind, whatever be its degree, and it is not to be confused with or taken as analogous to a mere mental weakness or lack of intelligence. It is pointed out that a man may find it difficult to answer questions of a particulars class but if he intelligently answers questions of various other sorts concerning himself, his family and property, he cannot be classed with men of unsound mind being unable to manage their affairs and that if a man is able to understand and answer questions on various matters except those relating to arithmetical calculations, he cannot be regarded as mentally unsound, although he would be held as having a weak or undeveloped mind. (v) A similar proposition is laid down in Sarjug Singh v. Gularbo Kuer . It is pointed out that the Court in assuming jurisdiction under the Lunacy Act, must first of all keep in view the distinction between mere weakness of intellect and 'lunatic' as understood in the Act and it is the duty of the Court, before proceeding further, to determine judicially whether the person alleged to be incapable of managing himself or his affairs, is really a lunatic in that sense, (vi) In R. Lingaraj v. Parvathi . Justice S. Natarajan, after referring to the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Teka Devi's case A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 289 and of the Allahabad High Court in Joshi Ram Krishan's case, A.I.R. 1949 All. Justice S. Natarajan, after referring to the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Teka Devi's case A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 289 and of the Allahabad High Court in Joshi Ram Krishan's case, A.I.R. 1949 All. 449, referred to supra and extracting certain passages therefrom, observed as follows: While I am in agreement with the expressions contained in the above two decisions, I would like to add that unsoundness of mind has reference to a mental condition which falls outside the range of the wide spectrum of mental calibre ranging from that of a nincompoop to that of genius. It may well be that at the lower range of the spectrum there is an apparent resemblance between the mental fabric of a nincompoop or a bouby or a lubberly lout on the one hand and a lunatic on the other. But, such superficial similarity ought not to result in confusion. The spectrum of the mental calibre of unsound persons is of entirely different wave-lengths, the range varying from the wave-length of the mind of a mild and harmless lunatic at the base and going upto the top depicting the mind of a violent maniac. The stupidity or the dull wittedness or the weakness of mind of a simpleton is the sub-terranian level of the structure of the human intellect and the spex of it will extend to the soaring height of the mind of a genus. On the other hand, the mental condition of a lunatic described under the Act as an idiot or a person of unsound mind, has reference to a deranged or dishevelled mind which is on an entirely different plane that the dull wit or weak intellect of a simpleton or booby. However low the intelligence question of a simpleton may be, his mental capacity is referable to an integrated and sound mind, while the mental factor of a person of unsound mind can have reference only to a mind affected by severe congenital sub-normality or to a disintegrated or deranged or disheveled mind. It is in the perspective; the ability of a person with unsound mind to take care of himself and manage his affairs has to be assessed. It is in the perspective; the ability of a person with unsound mind to take care of himself and manage his affairs has to be assessed. A person of weak intellect may not have the capacity to look after himself and his affairs in a prudent or acceptable manner, but nevertheless, the capacity of his mind to manage himself and his affairs cannot be called into question. On the other hand, a person of unsound mind is one who is totally unsuited to manage himself and his affairs and such in competency is directly referable and attributable to the incapacity of his mind. With respect, I am entirely in agreement with the observations made by Justice. S. Natarajan, in the above passage. 9. Applying the principles stated above to the facts of this case, I find that the materials to be considered are the report of the doctor who examined Ramachandran, marked as Exhibit A.1, the deposition of the doctor as P.W.2 and the record of questions put by the District Judge to Ramachandran and the answers given by him. The evidence of P.W 1, the petitioner in the original petition as well as the evidence of R.W.1, the appellant herein is also relevant. 10. The report of P.W.2, who examined Ramachandran is to the following effect: Ramachandran was kept in observation from 28.3.1983 to 8.4.1983 (both days inclusive). He refused to enter the examiner's room, and he did not want to be interviewed alone. Throughout the interview he was holding on to his sister's hands. He was found to be restless and fidgety and was constantly moving his limbs. When he was asked as to why he was admitted in the hospital he was unable to answer. His intelligence was clinically found to be poor as judged by general fund of information. His emotions were not appropriate to the situation. He had to be looked after for taking bath and taking care of his personal hygiene. His insight and judgment were found to be totally lacking At the end of the report, the doctor opined that Ramachandran suffered from a type of mental illness-chronic schizophrenia over a background of mental retardation. 11. The doctor, who submitted the report, was examined as P.W.2. In her deposition she repeated what was stated by her in her report. His insight and judgment were found to be totally lacking At the end of the report, the doctor opined that Ramachandran suffered from a type of mental illness-chronic schizophrenia over a background of mental retardation. 11. The doctor, who submitted the report, was examined as P.W.2. In her deposition she repeated what was stated by her in her report. In the cross examination she reiterated that Ramachandran was not able to answer as to the purpose for which he was brought to the hospital. No doubt she admitted that he was not violent and did not beat anybody. It is also admitted by her that he did not abuse anybody. But her evidence is clear that Ramachandran has to be helped for taking food and the disease suffered by him is split mind type of mental illness. According to her deposition nobody can say the reason for the mental illness. 12. When the Court questioned Ramachandran he gave answers. To some of the questions the answers were proper. But with regard to some other questions he could not give proper answers inspite of they being very simple. For example, when he was asked top his native place his reply was "Meenakshi Ammal". When he was asked about the case he said that he did not know. He said that he had no property at all. About his brothers he said that he had a younger brother by name Chandra. Actually he is the youngest of the brothers and he has no younger brother at all and Chandra is his own name. Chandra is the name by which he is called by his relatives. He denied having married Geetha. He denied having given power of attorney. Towards the end of the deposition the District Judge has recorded as follows: 'The witness looks up and down standing in the witness box. Before giving answers the witness looks to his sister standing in the verandah". The last question related to the sale of properties. The witness did not answer it but simply waved his hand. 13. P.W.1, the petitioner in the original petition, has deposed that Ramachandran cannot do anything by himself. Except that statement there is nothing useful in her evidence with regard to the state of mind of Ramachandran. R.W.1 is the appellant herself. The witness did not answer it but simply waved his hand. 13. P.W.1, the petitioner in the original petition, has deposed that Ramachandran cannot do anything by himself. Except that statement there is nothing useful in her evidence with regard to the state of mind of Ramachandran. R.W.1 is the appellant herself. In the cross-examination she states that the wife of Ramachandran filed a petition for divorce on the ground that Ramachandran was a lunatic and that case was compromised. She admits that Ramachandran never goes out of the house and that he did not move about for the past 5/6 years. She also states that Ramachandran is not aware of the existence of his properties. She adds that he is not aware of the sale effected by her. She admits that Ramachandran was not able to understand when the Sub-Registrar came to the house and registered the power of attorney. She makes a significant admission that Ramachandran cannot by himself take both and wear dresses. It is also admitted that Ramachandran used to defecate wherever he is. 14. The above evidence is sufficient to hold that Ramabhandran is of unsound mind and that he is not in a position to manage his affairs. Besides, there is one document which is quite relevant for deciding whether Ramachandran is a lunatic. Exhibit A.8 is a release deed executed by Ramachandran's wife in favour of his mother Meenakshi Ammal. It is stated in the document that Meenakshi Ammal is acting as curator of Ramachandran as he happens to be an idiot not being in a position to take care of his affairs. That document is dated 19.9.1969 which shows that even as early as 1969, Ramachandran was described as an idiot by his own mother Meenakshi Ammal, who is the first respondent in the original petition in the Court below. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant or her mother as to why and how Ramachandran was described as an idiot being incapable of looking after his affairs in 1969. This is a strong piece of evidence to show that Ramachandran is not a person having normal frame of mind. 15. It is clear from the evidence on record referred to above the Ramachandran is a lunatic as defined by the Act. This is a strong piece of evidence to show that Ramachandran is not a person having normal frame of mind. 15. It is clear from the evidence on record referred to above the Ramachandran is a lunatic as defined by the Act. I agree with the Court below that Ramachandran is a lunatic and a guardian should be appointed for managing his affairs. The finding of the Court below on this aspect of the matter is confirmed. 16. The next question is with regard to the appointment of a guardian. I am of the view that in, this case, the guardian of the person of the lunatic should be one who will take proper care of the lunatic in so far as his personal comforts are concerned. The evidence discloses that Ramachandran has been looked upto his sister, the appellant for anything and everything. It is not in dispute that for several years in the past Ramachandran has been taken care of by his sister, the appellant herein. It is urged by learned Counsel for the first respondent herein that the appellant has not borne in mind the interest of the lunatic and she has been alienating all his properties joining with her mother. That will not be a ground for rejecting the claim of the appellant to be a guardian for the person of the lunatic. I find that all the alienations effected by the appellant and her mother were after the filling of the original petition by the first respondent. Probably, with a view to keep the properties away from the clutches of the first respondent in the event of her success in the main original petition, the properties were alienated. That will only show that the appellant and her mother were ill-advised and they were not taking proper counsel from appropriate persons. That will not however, indicate that in so far as the person of the lunatic is concerned, the appellant is not a fit person to be appointed as the guardian. Learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that either the first respondent or her husband Venkataraman or both of them should be appointed as the guardian of the person of the lunatic. The evidence discloses that the first respondent was not in the family house for quite some time. Learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that either the first respondent or her husband Venkataraman or both of them should be appointed as the guardian of the person of the lunatic. The evidence discloses that the first respondent was not in the family house for quite some time. It is admitted that the first respondent was not living with her husband even at the time when she gave deposition in the court below. However, the first respondent has filed an affidavit in this Court that there has been a settlement of the disputes between herself and her husband during the pendency of the proceedings and they are now living together. In fact, a joint affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and her husband in this Court to that effect. I am of the view that the lunatic must be under the care of a woman so that his personal needs will be properly attended to. For that purpose, the first respondent is not a fit person. She is only a sister-in-law of Ramachandran. She cannot attend to the personal needs of the lunatic and she cannot take as much care as the sister of the Lunatic can take. Hence, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the proper person to be appointed as personal guardian is the appellant herself. Hence I appoint the appellant as the personal guardian of the minor. 17. With reference to the properties, the appellant has already proved by alienating the properties that she is not fit to be the guardian of the properties of the lunatic. 18. Insofar as the properties are concerned, the Act contemplates appointment of managers. The relevant term is not 'guardian' for the properties; It is really 'manager'. The question is, who is to be appointed as manager for the properties of the lunatic in this case. I have excluded the appellant from consideration in view of her conduct after the filing of the original petition. It is seen that under Exhibits A.2 to A.7, all of them being in March, 1982, the entire nanja lands belonging to the lunatic have been alienated by the appellant and her mother, purporting to do so under a power of attorney granted by Ramachandran, the lunatic. It is seen that under Exhibits A.2 to A.7, all of them being in March, 1982, the entire nanja lands belonging to the lunatic have been alienated by the appellant and her mother, purporting to do so under a power of attorney granted by Ramachandran, the lunatic. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the interests of the lunatic would be best served by appointing the first respondent and her husband as joint managers for the properties of the lunatic and I accordingly appoint them. They shall act together under the directions of the District Judge. Both of them have filed a joint affidavit in this Court setting out of the properties owned by them. According to them they are owning several properties worth several lakhs of rupees. The averments in the joint affidavit filed by the first respondent and her husband are disputed by the appellant. It is not necessary for me to consider here as to whether the first respondent and her husband are owning as many properties as stated in the affidavit. In order to safeguard the interests of the Lunatic I hereby direct the joint managers to furnish security in a sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the District Judge, within 31st August, 1990. The form of security is left to the discretion of the District Judge. It may be either immovable property security or bank guarantee. 19. The District Court shall also give directions with regard to the realisation of the properties alienated during the pendency of the original petition, by the appellant and her mother. Proceedings may have to be instituted as against the alienees by the joint managers. For that purpose the joint managers shall get appropriate directions from the District Court. 20. It is now admitted before me that the appellant is getting income from one of the properties in Chinnamanur and that the said property is not mentioned in the original petition. It is also admitted in the additional counter affidavit filed in C.M.P. No.15544 of 1989 that the appellant is getting a total yield of 68 kalams per year. In view of the fact that the appellant is now getting paddy income, I am not fixing any amount to be paid by way of maintenance to the lunatic by the managers to the appellant at this stage. In view of the fact that the appellant is now getting paddy income, I am not fixing any amount to be paid by way of maintenance to the lunatic by the managers to the appellant at this stage. The District Court shall fix a particular amount to be paid to the appellant herein by the managers for maintaining the lunatic every month. The District Judge may fix it either in terms of cash or kind or partly in cash partly in kind. Appropriate orders with regard to payment of maintenance, after hearing all parties and ascertaining all the properties which from part of the lunatic's estate and the income therefrom, shall be made on or before 31st October, 1990. 21. Insofar as the house in which the lunatic is at present residing, is concerned, he shall not be disturbed. He is entitled to continue to reside in the house along with the personal guardian. 22. All other properties shall be put in the possession of the joint managers as soon as the security is furnished, by the joint-managers as directed by me herein before. The appellant shall also handover the fixed deposit receipts to the joint manager. It is open to the joint managers to address the concerned banks and take appropriate steps for realising the interest income from the bank. The District Judge shall give appropriate directions with regard to filing of periodical accounts in Court by "the joint manager. 23. It is open to the parties including personal guardian of the lunatic to apply to the District Court for appropriate directions, as and when necessary. The appeal is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.