ABDUL SATAR SAIT Vs. KUNHU MOIDU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the revision Petitioner. The suit, O.S. 271 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge of Anjikaimal, was filed by two Plaintiffs under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the Defendant from his office as trustee of a Mohammadan Trust and for other reliefs. These two Plaintiffs had obtained the necessary sanction to institute the suit. While the case was pending trial, the first Plaintiff died and three other persons claiming to be interested in the trust applied to get themselves impleaded as Plaintiffs. The Defendant objected to the same. His main objections were that the persons who obtained sanction to institute the suit were alone competent to continue the same, that the Petitioners were not persons interested in the trust, and that the petition was not presented with 'bona fide' motives.

(2.) THE Court below held that, where persons initially obtaining permission die during the pendency of the suit, the competency of other members of the public to continue the suit cannot be questioned and that as the status of the Petitioners as those interested in the trust is questioned by the Defendant, the third Petitioner who was a party to the petition for sanction can alone be impleaded. This revision petition is to get this order vacated. Sanction to file the suit was given to two persons and they alone were competent to institute the suit. But when the suit is once validly filed by these two persons, it becomes a representative suit subject to all the incidents affecting suits in general and representative suits in particular. See the decision in -Mt. Ali Begum v. Badr -ul -Islam Alikhan : AIR 1938 PC 184 (A). When one of the two Plaintiffs dies, no question of abatement would arise even if Ors. are not impleaded in his place. It is open to the remaining Plaintiff to continue the suit. None of the provisions of Order 22 Code of Civil Procedure can be availed of for the representative of a deceased Plaintiff to come in, in suits of this nature.

(3.) THE learned Judge had stated that the deft had not admitted that the Petitioners were persons interested in the trust. No finding on this question was also recorded. It was mentioned that the third Petitioner was one of the signatories to the petition to Government for granting sanction to the two Plaintiffs to institute the suit. It was on this ground that he alone was allowed to be added as a party. No allegation in a petition advancing a claim is not prima facie proof of his interest in the trust. That is a matter that has to be tried and decided.