VITTAL PRABHU Vs. MADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit was to recover possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent. The property belonged to a temple known by the name Srimath Anantheshwar Temple, Manjeshwar. On 9-7-'53 the defendant took the property on lease stipulating to pay a rent of Rs. 15/- per mensem. The main contention of the defendant was that the persons who had instituted the suit had no locus standi to sue on behalf of the temple as they were not the dejure trustees appointed by competent authority.

(2.) The courts below found that the persons who have instituted the suit on behalf of the temple were not the de jure trustees appointed by the proper authority but that they were acting as trustees of the temple for a long time and therefore they were de facto trustees and were competent to maintain the suit, and on that ground decreed the suit.

(3.) The only question argued before me by counsel for the appellant was that the view of the courts below that de facto trustees could maintain the suit on behalf of the temple is not correct, and therefore the suit was incompetent. The temple is represented by three trustees in this action and the question for consideration is whether these persons were entitled to maintain the suit. Ext. B 1 is a copy of the scheme framed in respect of the management of the temple in O. S. 4/1928 on the file of the District Court of South Kanara, Mangalore, and the temple was being managed under that scheme for some time. But in 1931 the temple was notified by the authorities under the Hindu Religious Endowment Act to be a temple coming within the purview of that Act. To set aside this notification a suit was filed by one of the worshippers in the temple as O. S. 61/1947 in the Sub Court of South Kanara. The notification was set aside by the Court. There was an appeal to the High Court of Madras, and an application to stay the further proceedings in consequence of the decree passed by the Sub Court was filed in the High Court. The High Court granted an interim stay in the first instance. But subsequently that stay order was vacated by Ext. A7. By Ext. A7 it was ordered as follows: