MADHU Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two devotees of a public temple representing the deity by name Sree Khandakarna Kshethram, Kanjiramchira, Alappuzha came up with a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. obstructing the delivery of a portion of property belonged to the deity in execution of a money decree. It was dismissed by the Sub Judge on the ground that no document was produced by the petitioners to show their right, title or interest over the property to obstruct the delivery. The fundamental principles governing a perpectual minor and competency of a devotee to represent the deity/idol in a legal proceedings, the binding force of a decree against a perpectual minor and the legal entity of an idol in a public temple, though raised, were not even taken into consideration in the impugned order. It is unfortunate that the officer (Sub Judge concerned) did not even go into the abovesaid issues or understand the dispute involved in the petition, but dismissed the same on an extraneous ground that none of the claim petitioners produced any document of their right, title or interest to obstruct delivery.

(2.) It is a case wherein a decree is sought to be executed against the property held by a public temple and the idol thereof. Neither the public temple nor the idol was made as a party to the suit or the decree thereof. It is a money decree against two unincorporated associations named after the temple viz., Sree Khandakarna Kshethrayogam, Kanjiramchira, Alappuzha represented by its President P.Rajeev, its Secretary S.N.Thyagarajan, the first defendant and The Sreepadam Funds, Kanjiramchira, Alappuzha represented by Chairman V.V.Viswan, the second defendant. Since the defendants are unregistered and unincorporated associations, leave was granted to institute the suit under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C.

(3.) It is submitted by the respondent/decree holder that since there is a publication under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., the claim petitioners are bound by the decree though the idol or the public temple was not made as a party to the suit or the decree thereof. The said contention is not seen either taken up or discussed by the Sub Judge who passed the impugned order. The purpose of Order I Rule 8 CPC is to give notice to all interested persons, when there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit. The expression "on behalf of" incorporated in Rule 8(1) of Order I C.P.C. must be appreciated and understood in relation to the words "having the same interest in one suit". Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. would operate only against a person, who is having the same interest as that of a person, who was permitted to either institute a suit or defend a suit in a representative capacity and it will not have any operation or binding force to any other person who is having a different interest. Necessarily, the binding nature of the suit or the decree, if any, passed therein in compliance with Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. must be understood as binding on only those persons in whose behalf the suit was instituted or defended in a representative capacity having the "same interest" and none else.