AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think that the District Judge is in error in refusing to entertain the petition on the ground that it is not admitted that the alleged lunatic is
possessed of any property If that were a sufficient reason the jurisdiction of the Court could be ousted in every case by the respondent simply
refusing to admit that the lunatic has any property. No doubt it is necessary as a pre-requisite to the Court taking action that the Court should be
satisfied that the alleged lunatic has property.
The petitioner alleges that the lunatic has property, and the respondent denies it. Obviously it is necessary for the District Judge to enquire, it
may be summarily, and to decide whether or not the lunatic has property, and in case he decides in the affirmative the District Judge should
proceed to take further action in accordance with law.
We set aside the order of the District Judge with costs and remand the petition for disposal according to law.